Abortion violates the inalienable right to life.

[Chaossaber314]

@Technosoul & Soylent

All further good reasons why paperwork has nothing to do with the classification of life.

[Whatssnew]

WinterWind…Good points. However I feel people too often say I am for life, or I am for choice. My point is where life by definition starts, thus (I think) an unarguable point.

JaneDoe321…Your right, courts would take too long. I suppose a hospital should be allowed to approve such actions, but I think it should not be a decision made by only doctors, meaning at least one head of a hospital should also approve it. There will be other rare situations where other situations that will need to be taken under consideration but that’s another subject.

Morality Games…I see your point. However I am not considering anything but when the form becomes a living human being, functionality is not relevant (If you have a brain dead person in a hospital, and you walk up and kill he/she, it is murder which you will be held accountable for.) Point being that stopping the form from becoming a living being is not killing, and to extinguish a beating heart is killing.

Court463…I agree that people are not making an effort to understand other points of view.

SoylentGreen… “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Since it is on the piece of paper that marks the birth of our country I think it is fair to say what it states supersedes any other paper resulting from it. Thus I think it is fair to say it is law, as it infers that it is guaranteed by God who supersedes the United States Government, “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
“The declaration of independence has no legal status, it is only a statement of intent put out by revolutionists to make their claim on why they are revolting.” Also that we are a independent nation. As for legal status it is the USA birth Certificate, (though not acknowledged for a while at first.) All that follows under that name is legitimized by this document.

Technosoal… “To become a citizen you must first get a birth certificate. Being that an unborn cannot obtain a birth certificate until they are in fact born, they have no bases to claim that right.” No. If someone, lets say a person, comes to our country and you kill them, it is still murder even though that person is not a USA citizen.

Halofan48…Not talking about stopping life support, saying walking in and stabbing shooting whatever, a brain dead person is murder. That analogy was to show brain function is not more important than a heart beat.

Others…I am saying life begins with life (heart beat), not at conception because life is not yet present. Without a heart beat it is not a living being, only a collection of developing body parts no more than skin grown in labs. (Though I still don't think it is right at any point to have an abortion.) Lastly it was mentioned this page should be under other links. Well this link is unlike the others because it puts forth an actual point to discuss, not a beliefe to argue. I am not saying weather its wrong or right, I am saying where life begins, and when abortion is killing/murder. Also that I believe people are getting caught up in quality of life the child will have, the mother who doesn't want the kid, weather or not you have a mentaly function being, all of which I consider irrelevant to the issue. The issue is what is life and when abortion becomes killing/murder. Thanks again for your intelegent mature content as of thus far.

[JaneDoe321]

If life begins at conception, then I want to retroactively apply for tax benefits for the years when I was pregnant but had not delivered yet.

[SoylentGreen]

Whatssnew Since it is on the piece of paper that marks the birth of our country I think it is fair to say what it states supersedes any other paper resulting from it

Even though as stated

John Adams complained that the Declaration's ideas were "hackneyed," Jefferson agreed. He wrote: "Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind."

Thus I think it is fair to say it is law

,

No, its not fair to say its law. Because it is not enforceable.

as it infers that it is guaranteed by God who supersedes the United States Government,

Then first you must prove that there is a god who can give any kind of guarantee.

“they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

Again, what creator, and rights are only an extension of the philosophy you follow and change as philosophical ideas change.

Without a heart beat it is not a living being,

Even with a heartbeat it is still just a bunch of cells, why pick a heartbeat as the point of no return?

[Halofan48]

Quote by: Whatssnew Halofan48…Not talking about stopping life support, saying walking in and stabbing shooting whatever, a brain dead person is murder. That analogy was to show brain function is not more important than a heart beat.

You miss my point. Your analogy isn't anything like abortion. Abortion isn't some guy who comes in and "kills" the fetus without the consent of the mother. Taking a brain dead person off life support is more similar to abortion. The family (mother) decides to take the person (fetus) off life support (abortion) so a doctor comes in and removes the systems keeping the person alive (doctor performing abortion).

Look, if a ball of cells or organ now counts as life, then every time you scratch an itch or removing an organ that isn't performing correctly is murder, since there are cells being killed in each example.

Ugh, why can't people just stop trying to control others lives? Abortions aren't affecting you, if someone has one it's none of your business, you are coming to no harm from abortions, so stop trying to dictate what other people can and can't do just because of what you believe.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Technosoul An inalienable right to life is something granted to citizens of the USA by our Consitution. To become a citizen you must first get a birth certificate. Being that an unborn cannot obtain a birth certificate until they are in fact born, they have no bases to claim that right.

...

1) The United States grants plenty of rights to individuals regardless of citizenship. Easy example: Miranda.
2) The Constitution never grants the right to life, it offers a framework for the protection of that right with due process.
3) And even if you're talking about the Declaration and not the Constitution, the Declaration specifies the inalienable rights as granted by a "Creator" (or if you prefer straight-up Locke, they're rights assumed to be held by all people in the state of nature); no State ever grants inalienable rights, rather they are created to protect them.

[Whatssnew]

You miss my point. Your analogy isn't anything like abortion. Abortion isn't some guy who comes in and "kills" the fetus without the consent of the mother. Taking a brain dead person off life support is more similar to abortion. The family (mother) decides to take the person (fetus) off life support (abortion) so a doctor comes in and removes the systems keeping the person alive (doctor performing abortion).

My point was brain activity is not relevant to the question of what is murder. For your point on the analogy, it would be more like removing someone from life support that has a forseeable strong recovery. In effect killing a viable life, not a vegitable with little to no chance of survival.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: JaneDoe321 If life begins at conception, then I want to retroactively apply for tax benefits for the years when I was pregnant but had not delivered yet.

Heh. Well played.

[Halofan48]

In effect killing a viable life, not a vegitable with little to no chance of survival.

The same decision is taken with people in Comas. So it still applies somewhat. It's not the best analogy, but it can be hard to find one for something like abortion

[Whatssnew]

Your right, it isn't the best anology. But I don't know of a better one. As for what you say, I think we both understand eachothers points but due to fundemental belief differences I don't think we can ever see eye to eye. I do apreciate hearing your point of view though, and if you can think of another anology I would like to here it.

[NDOC]

I don't understand Liberals .....save a tree, murder a fetus?

[MplsBison]

The right to life only applies to people who have been born.

[NDOC]

Quote by: MplsBison The right to life only applies to people who have been born.

That's insane.

[MplsBison]

Why?

[MplsBison]

Here's how I look at it:

can the baby survive outside the mother's womb using current technology?


IE, with current technology, a premature birth can survive at something like 6 months? I don't know off the top of my head.


If it can, then there is no ethical basis for abortion.



If it can't, then there is.






Perhaps one day technology will advance to the point where an entire pregnancy can take place in an artificial womb, rendering abortion obsolete.

[NDOC]

Because, what gives you or anybody else the right to determine life or death? I understand there are extenuating circumstances that surround everything and everything but still. I say leave it to nature. If it was meant to be, then it will be so.

[Jack]

what gives you or anybody else the right to determine life or death?

Life isn't sacred, we do it all the time with prisoners and the brain dead. We, as a society, provide for the defense of your life by means of deadly force. We only selectively apply "sacredness of life".

[NDOC]

Well.... still doesn't make it right. Why terminate the life of an unborn when there are so many families willing to adopt? I have mixed feelings on this one to be honest. I think taking life in some instances is necessary. So..i guess this makes me a hypocrite

[Halofan48]

Why terminate the life of an unborn when there are so many families willing to adopt?

Then why do so many children go by in life in a orphanage or a hospital? Perhaps there aren't enough families willing to/capable of adopting a child.

[NDOC]

Quote by: Isherwood Life isn't sacred, we do it all the time with prisoners and the brain dead. We, as a society, provide for the defense of your life by means of deadly force. We only selectively apply "sacredness of life".

Quote by: Halofan48 Then why do so many children go by in life in a orphanage or a hospital? Perhaps there aren't enough families willing to/capable of adopting a child.

Perhaps