You Can't Kill Something That's Not Alive

It's the removal process of the zygote / embryo depending on its stage that ceases it's development. It cannot develop without it's host, and if the host doesn't want it, or cannot deliver it without complications, that's for a doctor to decide. If a woman is going to endanger or harm herself or potentially a new life, a doctor should be the one to handle that situation. So many drug addicts become pregnant and to no fault of a zygote a doctor should be involved. The socal worker removing kids from drug addicted households could have been prevented if women were not chastised with the idea that abortion is wrong. The idea that drug addicts make great parents is wrong. The idea that a homeless pregnant woman would raise a child is wrong.

So killing it is the best alternative. Nice.

Removal before it can be killed by society is a better option when the woman and her doctor come to that conclusion.

Does removing it kill it?

Define it without a host as living, or being the property of its host. A tape worm is living inside a host but dies once it's removed. The only real thing that can live outside of a host and continue to multiply is cancer. So if cancer doesn't die should we allow it to kill the host? I guess anything can live in a scientific setting with the proper climate control, so that being said should we be incubating every living cancer cell, or every blood drawl, or every removed parasite like tape worms... Because these properties are alive and living and have the potential to live a life out as a worm or a blood cell? Just because they can live? I'm all for a woman and her Liberty to make a decision behind a closed door with her physician. The storage of embryos being held in banks waiting to be used is the whole question of what do you do with millions of cells waiting for hosts. Vs a woman who has a unwanted one wanting a removal.

Reducing human life to a tape worm, cancer, or any other parasite is a repugnant conclusion. You should be disgusted with yourself for going this low in your form of argument. Maybe we are all living in chaos but that doesn't justify anarchy or the wanton slaughter of human life just for the F of it. You probably better re-evaluate your entire moral code if you're going to come to that.

The depiction of a fish, cow, pig, development, would be no different as a worm development. If you can see how the chart excludes the worm as a form of life than maybe you would not find that repugnant. Women have reasons why they seek abortion, and that's no place for me or you to be involved, but now the government has involved you in me. Nobody but a woman and a doctor should be involved. My opinion on the matter has been stated.

I think the moral code of not allowing a person to do what they want with their automony needs no evaluation. What needs evaluation is people paying money to house millions of zygote cells waiting for implantation. If you can have one but not the other than what is the point. No politics needed for a woman and her automony

What you mean by a woman and her autonomy is whether she gets to murder the baby or not. That's what we're talking about here. As for the morality of housing zygotes and blah blah blah, I don't know. That's actually beside the point. It sounds like what you're talking about is science and what I'm talking about is human life. It's as mundane as the baby is there and it has a mother and a father and also the decision to abort it at any stage is murder. You do not have the "autonomy" to murder anyone and the fact that the baby didn't do anything to anyone makes it even more egregious.

Look up the definition of autonomy then you would understand that everyone should have the right to govern their body and govern their life. If millions of potential babies are being housed in a bank just waiting for a power outage to create a mass murder in your eyes then it is a valid example. You believe life starts at conception, but that can happen in a laboratory. I don't believe life starts at conception. I can't change your beliefs and you can't change mine, but the issue at hand is that women should have access to abortion between them and her doctor. Regardless if you believe it's murder.

I just said it was science defining sex as procreative. If you want to live in a chaotic soup, more power to you, I guess. I'm not tossing you a life vest, though. You can fall on your own.

You're just resorting to casuistry to take the humanity out of something that is fundamentally human. And then you're taking the humanity out of that life in order to justify its murder. I'm glad you're being up front in that I'll never change your mind. That's fine but now that you know the truth as I'm speaking it now you'll never be able to deny that you're justifying murder. You have to live with yourself in that moral turpitude. I, on the other hand, am glad to be saved and morally superior than you. With that I take my ball and go home.

Luckily doctors aren't being put in legal jeopardy over abortion laws. The case of Amber Thurman according to her family and their lawyers (hint, hint) is being argued that what she suffered from was straight medical malpractice and not due to the stresses of crossing some kind of legal line. Thus, the "crossing of legal line" argument is also a false narrative to gin people up against anti-murdering babies in the womb laws.

I don't believe everyone should be forced to follow my religion. I have a religion which is Christianity. A lot of my religion's laws are popular but let's remember that certain laws such as the law against murder which usually gets established first is the cornerstone to any successful book of laws. Another law which usually only successful societies establish goes against cannibalism. And we can see some very obvious reasons for that, too.

If only you knew what the first year in the birthing wards in Texas were like. It was so bad that many obgyn doctors left Texas to practice in states that protected their judgement.

Did I say all that stuff was right?

No what you implied is sex equals baby and if any woman has sex and gets pregnant they are going to be forced to have a baby. No if ands or buts about it. Because you believe life starts at conception and nothing should interfere with the total 9 months of development.

And just to clarify, maybe a power outage at a lab of fertilized embryos is a bunch of murders. You're just using that to sidetrack the point. I don't care. It doesn't give women the "autonomy" to murder babies. It just doesn't. It's a sly pivot but it's still a pivot and you don't want to tackle the actual issue.

The actual issue is that abortion goes against your moral belief but not mine. If you don't believe in it don't practice it, but the issue at hand is stopping a woman from Access to a abortion she wants. Weather she believes it's wrong, let her live with her own moral code. If it hurts you that a woman had an abortion that's on you. Seriously just let it go and stop trying to halt access to abortion. You have the choice to not get one but if you needed one, you would want access if your own life depended on it. If you ask the husband of someone who's lost their wife and newborn what they thought of abortion I think you would get a response of , I wish the doctor could have performed an abortion sooner but the state law only allowed abortion if the heart has stopped, and because the heart was still beating nothing could be done till my wife began hemorrhaging to death. It's happening all the time and obgyn doctors have to risk their license breaking the law.

A woman's judgment starts with whether she chooses to have sex or not and that is protected- at the age of consent which was raised in the first place at the behest of women. A woman's responsibility, as well as a man's, starts at that point of judgment. Does that mean some people learn lessons the hard way? Yes it does, but so be it. It's not barbaric to enforce lessons, especially if it saves a human life.

Human women have been ending pregnancies since the beginning of time which in your belief would be Adam and Eve, but I do not believe in such nonsense and lean towards archeological histories. I think the life lesson you need to learn is that nobody has control over what another person does. It is a overpowering religiously based belief to enforce life lessons on a woman who is already living out her life and knows her limitations. Where were you when husbands forced themselves on their wife's and the outcome was 8 children? Where have you been when New York legalized abortion because women were getting beaten to death by baby daddies because they couldn't access abortion? Where were you when dumpster babies were a weekly occurrence?

"It's against your moral code but it's not against mine. Don't like it. Don't get one or don't do it." What a cop-out. You know, you could just as soon say murder isn't against your moral code and justify it and that's exactly what you're doing here. Murder isn't against your moral code so just don't do it. As long as it's someone else getting murdered and not you, it's no skin off your back. Isn't that right, jack?

See? See how easily your relativistic and juvenile sense of morality is subverted here? "That's just what you think." No. It's what I know. I know the difference between wrong and right. What you're telling me is you don't. And no, the "baby will kill the mama" argument does not happen as often as you say it does. Women's bodies were made for getting pregnant. It's as natural as eating and then taking a dump. Stop trying to pull one over on me. You won't get away with it.

Lol people have the choice to murder weather they get caught or not. The whole being against murder but killing someone proven guilty on death row is ok.... Which I'm ok with. Still innocent people are proven guilty all the time which is wrong. Just because you believe something doesn't happen often doesn't make it right for doctors to be put in a legal battle with the law when it does. Seriously you don't like it don't get it is not a cop out. Are you the type to say everyone should be forced to believe in God, or have the freedom to not believe in a god or religion?

Sex is a procreative act, not a recreative act. When humans make it a recreative act or I guess I should say recreational act we're doing something for which it was not intended. And that's a scientific standpoint. Even though the science may have come about later the religious practices that came before it only serve to reinforce that.

This is where it goes wrong. If you live in America each citizen has a freedom to religion. If I am forced to believe in a religion that mandates when, how, and who I have sex with we are going to have a problem.

it'll become alive soon????????

An embryo is alive now and it's also a human now. Definining it out of humanity is a Nazi tactic.