The Right to Life

Photo of TruthMonger.
By TruthMonger
January 23, 2008 - 13:57 ET

Abortion is suddenly on the radar again? Lovely...

States rights always seem to come up on this sordid topic as 3000+ children die every day - waiting endlessly for their right to be re-instated...

The Constitution guarantees the right to life. States and women cannot over-ride this. Or am I wrong?

‹ Meet the press this morning and Hillary. Possibly the most hilarious web page I've seen in my life ›

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Medically necessary???

January 23, 2008 - 14:35 ET by LionKing

In today's age of modern medicine, what constitutes a medically necessary abortion?

Partial-birth abortion is one of the most horrific acts. If Hitler had done this, it would have been just one more of the littany of war crimes and crimes against humanity listed against him.

[Isn't it amazing that liberals still think partial-brith abortion should be a CHOICE.]

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

abortion

January 24, 2008 - 00:10 ET by shawn228

This is a topic I am the middle on and I see both points of view. I used to be 100 percent pro choice, but this site has actually let me see the error of my ways.

I am not pro-life yet. I oppose partial birth abortion, but I believe it is okay to abort a fetus if it is diagnosed with downs syndrome or a serious birth defect or in cases of rape or incest.

As far as regular abortions go. As a personal choice, it is something I will never consider for my family. I did not realize how developed the child was when it was aborted. In some cases the head, feet etc are already formed.

At the same time I do not know if I agree with taking the choice away from other people. I see many comments day in and day out about how liberals enjoy killing babies. Terminating a pregnancy is usually a agonizing decision for an individual and I seriously doubt a high percentage of these women do not give it a second thought.

To answer your question TM, I would leave this issue with the Individual States

How does Romney stop the applause?

Romney shows his compassion

Shawn, I used to view it like you do now.

January 24, 2008 - 12:44 ET by Karma

Your a good man shawn. Try to look at this from the innocent offsprings' point of view. I believe your views will change in time.

let me get this straight

January 24, 2008 - 12:14 ET by TruthMonger

let me get this straight then - am I to understand then that you believe the states should be able to override the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

tm

January 25, 2008 - 01:33 ET by shawn228

I do not think I would phrase it that way, but yes I would leave it up to the states.

How does Romney stop the applause?

Romney shows his compassion

So we're going to start

January 25, 2008 - 20:59 ET by Cortillaen

So we're going to start ignoring the founding father's intentions and the basis of our nation now?

"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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government" -The Declaration of Independance [emphasis mine]

The right to life is so important that the founders explicitly stated the right (and implied the obligation) of the people to reject any governing body that tried to infringe upon it. By extension, no governing body should be able to make any denial of the right to life by another entity legal and should, in fact, strive to make any such action illegal. This would be why we have laws against murder. In reality, the argument being made by those on the pro-choice side is that unborn babies are not really human beings, and, as such, do not have basic human rights. Any other rhetoric is simply a smokescreen.

As for my reasons for rejecting the argument that a baby at any stage of developement (yes, from conception on) is anything less than a human being, entitled to all rights thereof, I've detailed them here. Take a look at what I have to say there and tell me what you think.

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

Cortilaen

January 25, 2008 - 22:44 ET by shawn228

I truly understand your point of view. I am still unsure if it is right to make all abortions illegal.

How do you feel about the morning after pill?

Romney five years ago

As I said, I believe human

January 26, 2008 - 00:40 ET by Cortillaen

As I said, I believe human life starts at conception. Any willful action to destroy even a fertilized egg constitutes murder in my view. A decision on how to view abortion is truly very simple. Decide at what point you believe human life begins, and destroying the baby at any point after that must be viewed as murder. I simply reject the use of any arbitrary anatomical benchmark to decide when life begins, the reasons for which I explain in the post linked above.  Without knowing the instant a child's soul enters its body, I have no choice but to use the moment of conception as the point at which life begins.  Again, the abortion debate simply comes down to at what point you believe life begins.

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

day after pill

January 26, 2008 - 00:57 ET by shawn228

I believe the morning after pill is the best solution. It is the most humane way to deal with unwanted pregnancies for a logical viewpoint as opposed to a religious one.

Romney five years ago

why is that Shawn?

January 26, 2008 - 01:01 ET by botg

logically at what point does a baby become a baby?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

Shawn, if you want to base

January 26, 2008 - 02:44 ET by Cortillaen

Shawn, if you want to base an argument purely off of logic, without delving into the spiritual and metaphysical, you'll find that my stance is the resulting one, since conception is the only biological event resulting in a new human life's creation. The pro-choice side repeatedly tries to claim a certain point in development as the spontaneous change from a mass of organic matter to a human being. No biological change in a baby's development happens like that, making the distinction drawn an inherently spiritual one. They end up trying to define the point at which the baby gains whatever it is that makes us human, whether you call it a spirit, soul, or just higher cognitive functions. Doing that, of course, is impossible; we can't even scientifically define what it is that makes us human beings instead of non-sentient animals, so identifying the moment in pre-birth development at which that something comes into being is well beyond our grasp. This means that choosing any one point in the development timeline as that special instant separating real human beings from mere lumps of tissue is a purely subjective decision. Since God has yet to see fit to tell me at what point He invests a baby with its soul, I've simply chosen the only point biology supports as the beginning of life, the initiating event of every child's development: conception.

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

fantasticly

January 31, 2008 - 15:32 ET by TruthMonger

fantasticly articulated

abortion is completely un-constitutional - from a purely biological point of view

so then what do we call the deliberate, systematic termination of almost 4000 human beings every day in the US...?

I started a new thread in 'The Woodshed'...

January 31, 2008 - 17:28 ET by Syrius

TM,

Let's discuss it and expand upon this issue...

http://newsbusters.o...

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

botg

January 26, 2008 - 01:12 ET by shawn228

The reason why I have steered right on this issue is because I have seen pictures of aborted babies, some of them are pretty developed. Their head, feet, arms are pretty formed and I now find it quite inhuman

It is not perfect, but I feel an embryo that is only 12 hrs old is not very inhuman.

Romney five years ago

simply put shawn

January 26, 2008 - 01:18 ET by botg

just name the point at which a baby becomes a baby.  Logically conception is it.  Emotionally your 'feelings' don't recognize the baby in the blastula stage, but Shawn you were once in the blastula stage.  Got logic?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

botg

January 26, 2008 - 01:42 ET by shawn228

I am a average Joe Schmoe and I have no idea what a blastula stage is.

I feel it is humane, because the fetus has not had a chance to develop. Like I said it is not perfect, but this scenario is much better than a first or 2nd trimester abortion.

Romney five years ago

so it is about feeling

January 26, 2008 - 01:48 ET by botg

and not logic?  Blastula, gastula: stages of development, not truly important.  What point does the baby become a baby?  After 180 days? 179? 178? 177?  You see if you begin at six months gestation, i believe we will agree there is a baby.  Go back one day or hour at a time and the difference will not be great enough to say "here, here it is" until conception.  Logically Shawn at conception the baby has its own DNA.  Great forensic evidence that a new person is here, check the DNA. 

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

"...What point does the

January 26, 2008 - 01:53 ET by alamojb

"...What point does the baby become a baby?  After 180 days? 179? 178? 177?  You see if you begin at six months gestation, i believe we will agree there is a baby.  Go back one day or hour at a time and the difference will not be great enough to say "here, here it is" until conception.  Logically Shawn at conception the baby has its own DNA."

Well said, botg!

 

 

botg

January 26, 2008 - 02:00 ET by shawn228

Yes It is about feeling botg, I totally admit it. After 12-24 hrs, there is no brain to be crushed, no spines to be snapped.

What is worse a day old embryo or this? Or would you consider them both equally bad?

Romney five years ago

Shawn

January 26, 2008 - 02:03 ET by botg

but what think ye?  (Of the logic)

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

botg

January 26, 2008 - 02:09 ET by shawn228

I stand by my comments about my logic botg. It is not perfect, especially in the religious sense, but destroying an embryo is 100 times better than crushing a tiny brain with sharp objects.

Like I said, it is not pefect, but it is a solution I can accept.

Romney five years ago

okeelee dokkeelee

January 26, 2008 - 02:14 ET by botg

but you haven't touched the reasoning

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

k botg

January 26, 2008 - 02:22 ET by shawn228

Maybe it is because of my limited liberal comprehension, but I truly don't understand your question. Your issue is when is a fetus a baby?

I feel one day is not enough for a baby to be developed even in the slightest and it is better than the alternative. If you feel this is twisted logic then I don't know what else to say. How about you answer my question a few posts above. Which is worse? Destroying an embryo or a developed fetus?

Romney five years ago

Shawn

January 26, 2008 - 02:30 ET by botg

they are both bad.  Of course the second holds a stronger emotional component so the perp would be held in greater disdain.

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

botg

January 26, 2008 - 02:34 ET by shawn228

thx for answering the queston botg. Good night.

Romney five years ago

good night Shawn Supreme

January 26, 2008 - 02:38 ET by botg

good night Shawn

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.