[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Roger Stone: AG Pam Bondi Must Answer For 14 Terabytes Claim Of Child Torture Videos! 'Hit Us, Please' - America's Left Issues A 'Broken Arrow' Signal To Europe Cash Jordan Trump Deports ‘Thousands of Migrants’ to Africa… on Purpose Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats Texas Flood Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ? Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia 329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive Which Countries Invest In The US The Most? The History of Barbecue ‘Pathetic’: Joe Biden tells another ‘tall tale’ during rare public appearance Lawsuit Reveals CDC Has ZERO Evidence Proving Vaccines Don't Cause Autism Trumps DOJ Reportedly Quietly Looking Into Criminal Charges Against Election Officials Volcanic Risk and Phreatic (Groundwater) eruptions at Campi Flegrei in Italy Russia Upgrades AGS-17 Automatic Grenade Launcher! They told us the chickenpox vaccine was no big deal—just a routine jab to “protect” kids from a mild childhood illness Pentagon creates new military border zone in Arizona For over 200 years neurological damage from vaccines has been noted and documented The killing of cardiologist in Gaza must be Indonesia's wake-up call

Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Liz Michael on Abortion
Source: http://www.lizmichael.com/
URL Source: http://www.lizmichael.com/abortion.htm
Published: Aug 15, 2006
Author: Liz Michael
Post Date: 2006-08-15 16:42:59 by wakeup
Keywords: None
Views: 904
Comments: 40

I fully recognize two sets of conflicting rights on the abortion issue. I believe strenuously in the right of a woman to control her own body. And I also believe strenuously in an unborn child's right to life.

I fully reject the concept that a fetus is not a human being. A fetus is scientifically a human being because it carries the human genome, it is alive, and it possesses all necessary cells needed to mature to adulthood under natural conditions. It is not a part of the woman's body: it resides inside a woman's body. These things are made quite evident via ultrasound and photography. From the moment of conception, an embryo is scientifically a being of the human specie, and therefore a human being. To willfully engage in an act which destroys that human being, regardless of what the law is or should be, is morally, murder unless there are compelling reasons. It is the same as killing a grown person or a child in cold blood...

Click for Full Text!

Poster Comment:

I am not looking for debate but, from time to time, certain positions on issues need to be re-stated, especially when that life or death issue involves those who have no voice. I offer Liz Michael's argument because she has great credibility and respect among many I respect.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.

#1. To: wakeup (#0) (Edited)

I am not looking for debate

i humbly beg to differ...Liz Michael offers a trite, simplistic and utterly naive argument.

shall i post pictures of women who died attempting back street abortions? or perhaps of women who killed themselves because they were pregnant? or shall we debate the righteous fascism of some lawmakers who see the pregnant female as a sub-human who loses her rights while she hosts the growth of another person? and shall we argue the finer points of the legal nonsense where the active termination of an unborn child is equated with the murder of a human who has lived to term?

why does she stop at the point of conception with her definition of viable life comprising the human genome (sperm and ova don't???) and "all necessary cells needed to mature to adulthood under natural conditions" well, gosh i thought it was only ONE fertilised egg cell or is she saying there has to be more differential cells before it is "alive"?

if a man ejaculates into a condom instead of impregnating his semen into a womb, has he not just destroyed a chance for the creation of a new human being? if a woman uses contraception, hasn't she just denied a chance for life? if she is anorexic or bulemic or smokes or drinks or uses drugs or goes horse riding or jogs or dances or anything else that might risk abortion or limit conception, is she guilty of murder? will she end up in Death Row?

i'm taking her arguments to their logical extreme - no contraception, no masturbation, only insemination and no intervention prior to term...abstinence or unprotected sex - and even abstinence itself may be a willful act of non- conception, i.e. the denial of potential life. of course i am being silly now but i wanted to demonstrate how stupid an absolutist argument can become!

ah yes, but we have to be sensible, pragmatic, and she did mention "compelling reasons", didn't she?

hmm..."compelling reasons" - who decides what these reasons should be - incest? rape? underage sex? cancer? genetic defects? or what about intelligence, sex of the baby, attractiveness, economic constraints, colour of skin, or the moral/ social suitability of the parent(s)?

and WHO exactly gets to decide whether and when a child should be aborted anyway? a judge? a jury? how quickly will they decide? or is it going to be a list of reasons embodied in law?

who is going to do this compelling anyway - are the police going to arrest and detain pregnant women? even if there was a "compelling reason" to abort, her use of the term "compelling" has a sinister side as it allows for the situation where a woman could be made to have an abortion EVEN IF SHE WANTS TO KEEP THE BABY. am i being silly again? i think not. look at societies where girl foetuses are aborted as undersirable. it depends on what people mean by a reason and how it is compelled.

so i reject her stupid, rash attempt to impose her illogical, unreasoned views on others. she might have some smart ideas in other areas but in this area she is dangerously wrong.

i firmly believe that the decision to keep or abort a foetus resides solely with the mother and that it is not the business of government or anyone else to interfere in a woman's right to carry or reject her pregnancy at any stage before birth.

ohh i know this is going to enrage the righteous, the control freaks and those who clamour for the rights of the father. tough - its MY womb and all the man contributes at that first stage is his sperm. after he withdraws his penis, he has no further say in what happens...unless and until the child is born. harsh, perhaps but that's the way nature works. deal with it.

for what its worth, i've just given birth to a lovely, beautiful baby and share the joy and wonder of his creation with his father, my husband :) i do not regret for ONE MOMENT carrying him and helping him become a viable human infant.

it doesn't, however, mean that i've lost my brain and my ability to spot a false argument when i see one.

(bet this one gets people shouting)

ruthie  posted on  2006-08-15   19:47:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#2. To: ruthie (#1)

so very well articulated and i agree with you. i can guarantee that almost everyone would make an exception at some point. i've often asked those absolutists what decision they would make if their wife or daughter chose to abort the product of a violent rape by some subhuman diseased, mentally ill beast. would they force her to carry this thing to term at the risk of her physical and mental well being? some have said no and agreed that there would be exceptions when presented with that. the more insensitive bullheaded ones refuse to answer. it's easy for these authoritarians to be judgmental about others.

christine  posted on  2006-08-15 20:16:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"shall i post pictures of women who died attempting back street abortions?"

And what point would that make?

Which is the greater good, saving 4,000 children a day or saving a much smaller number of women each day?

Logically: Fewer dead is better than many dead.

Emotionally: Some women value their life more than their childs.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 22:18:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

(bet this one gets people shouting)

I think so ruthie :)

How's the babe?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-08-15 22:25:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

shall i post pictures of women who died attempting back street abortions? or perhaps of women who killed themselves because they were pregnant?

Shall I post pictures of women who committed suicide after having an abortion out of guilt??????

Don't worry..I won't.

I hope your little angel is cuddly. It seems like just yesterday my little ones were the same age :0) Congatulations!

IndieTX  posted on  2006-08-15 22:27:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"...or perhaps of women who killed themselves because they were pregnant?"

Now we are talking relatively a much smaller number than the backstreet argument.

Same counter argument though.

What about killing yourself because you didn't want your one year old?

I do not make a distinction between an unborn child and a one year old. Both are children with the right to life. "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, among them is the right to life...." At what moment was that life created? Clearly at conception. We have inalienable rights from the moment we were created.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 22:33:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"... or shall we debate the righteous fascism of some lawmakers who see the pregnant female as a sub-human who loses her rights while she hosts the growth of another person."

Or shall we debate the righteous fascism of some lawmakers who see the mother of a one year old as a sub-human who loses her rights while she raises her child.

Whether a fascist or a democratic government inacts laws to protect one year olds or the unborn, logically, it's a honorable thing to do.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 22:41:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"...and shall we argue the finer points of the legal nonsense where the active termination of an unborn child is equated with the murder of a human who has lived to term?"

Why not argue the finer points?

I believe I covered this with the unalienable rights argument. Are you suggesting that Jefferson's argument about endowed rights at creation is legal nonsense?

"Active termination" sounds like stopping phone service. We are talking about the death of a child.

Did you even notice your own words: "murder of a human who has lived to term?" Don't you see that your inner voice caused you to use the phrase "human who has lived." And, you are talking about the unborn. How can killing a "human who has lived" be acceptable to you?

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 22:50:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

" why does she stop at the point of conception with her definition of viable life comprising the human genome (sperm and ova don't???) and "all necessary cells needed to mature to adulthood under natural conditions" well, gosh i thought it was only ONE fertilised egg cell or is she saying there has to be more differential cells before it is "alive"?"

A sperm is not human life any more than a blood cell is or an eye ball. Same for the egg.

We are endowed, by our Creator, with the right to life, at the moment we are created. We are not created until the two come together.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 22:58:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

" if a man ejaculates into a condom instead of impregnating his semen into a womb, has he not just destroyed a chance for the creation of a new human being?"

Yes but, this fact has no bearing on your argument.

If a man choses to watch the ball game instead of impregnating his wife, has he not just destroyed a chance for the creation of a new human being?

Yep.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 23:03:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"if a woman uses contraception, hasn't she just denied a chance for life?"

Yes, of course, but, that does not address your argument either. We are not talking about denying a chance for life, we are talking about the "murder of a human who has lived" short of full term.

Yes, of course, but, that does not address your argument either. We are not talking about denying a chance for life, we are talking about the "murder of a human who has lived" short of full term.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 23:07:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"...if she is anorexic or bulemic or smokes or drinks or uses drugs or goes horse riding or jogs or dances or anything else that might risk abortion or limit conception, is she guilty of murder? will she end up in Death Row?"

Nope.

Again, this is not related to the issue as to whether a women should be allowed to kill her baby.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 23:11:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"...'m taking her arguments to their logical extreme - no contraception, no masturbation, only insemination and no intervention prior to term...abstinence or unprotected sex - and even abstinence itself may be a willful act of non- conception, i.e. the denial of potential life. of course i am being silly now but i wanted to demonstrate how stupid an absolutist argument can become!"

No demonstration here at all.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 23:13:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"... and WHO exactly gets to decide whether and when a child should be aborted anyway? a judge? a jury? how quickly will they decide? or is it going to be a list of reasons embodied in law?"

Please note that you used the phrase "when a child should be aborted." It's a child we are talking about and aborted is a clever way to say killed.

Well, who decides whether a one year old may be killed? Judges and juries and such. Seems like a good plan to me. Yes the Law should decide through its elected representatives, the legality of killing a child. I don't think this is helping your argument.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 23:23:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"... i firmly believe that the decision to keep or abort a foetus resides solely with the mother and that it is not the business of government or anyone else to interfere in a woman's right to carry or reject her pregnancy at any stage before birth."

To illustrate a point allow me to switch a few words in your statement: I firmly believe that the decision to keep or kill a one year old resides solely with the mother and that it is not the business of government or anyone else to interfere in a woman's right to raise or kill her children at any age.

Why do you make a distinction between born and unborn? This has been the basis of your argument all along... that the child is unborn therefore it may be killed yet, you have not clarified why and how you can make the distinction.

What is the difference between the day or week or month before delivery and the day after delivery?

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 23:35:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"... ohh i know this is going to enrage the righteous, the control freaks and those who clamour for the rights of the father. tough - its MY womb and all the man contributes at that first stage is his sperm. after he withdraws his penis, he has no further say in what happens...unless and until the child is born. harsh, perhaps but that's the way nature works. deal with it."

Gee, what exactly is wrong with the father having a problem with you killing his child? My womb, my child, doesn't quite cover it. He has a "further say" as to what happens to his one year old, why not his child that you carry. You are cold.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 23:40:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"...or what its worth, i've just given birth to a lovely, beautiful baby and share the joy and wonder of his creation with his father, my husband..."

Congratulations. By the way, you speak of "his creation," exactly when was that lovely, beautiful baby created? Was it that day at the hospital or that evening when you made love to your husband?

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 23:48:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"...i do not regret for ONE MOMENT carrying him and helping him become a viable human infant."

Allow a little coldness from me, please.

Would you be regretful had you aborted this child?

Would you consider it your right to kill this child a few months ago?

Does that child have the right to live and did that child have the right to live the day before you went into delivery?

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15 23:54:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]