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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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 Marandi: Israel Prepares Proxies for Next War with Iran? "Hitler Survived WW2 And I Brought Proof" Norman Ohler STUNS Joe Rogan CIA Finally Admits a Pyschological Warfare Agent from the Agency “Came into Contact” with Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK’s Assassination

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: 845
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 # 7.

#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  

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  

... if their wife or daughter chose to abort the product of a violent rape by some subhuman diseased, mentally ill beast ...

Orwell was right (as usual). Can't type "baby" when we want to kill the baby. "Product" ... "thing" ... if somebody screws up and the "thing" gets born, are you OK with killing him/her then (at five days, or six months, or a year)? Why not? What's the difference?

Enderby  posted on  2006-08-15   22:40:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#23. To: Enderby (#7)

Let me ask you these questions. Let's be realistic and not idealistic. Here's a hypothetical scenario but one that elicits relevant questions.

If I were violently raped by a disease-ridden, genetically-defective "man" with a 70-IQ, would you unconditionally commit to paying for all of the medical bills up to and including delivery? Would you unconditionally commit to driving me back and forth to the obstetrician's and therapist's offices? Would you commit to adopting, then expending your time and money to rear this child ("product" of rape--yes, in my mind, under this circumstance, that is an apropos noun) to adulthood, no matter how defective?

If you answer no to one or all of these questions, how then can you ask someone else, particularly the victim of a rape, to do that which you are not willing to do? How can you expect her to have her entire life changed, re-arranged and likely ruined due to an act in which she had no voluntary participation? Further, how can you ask or expect an unwilling taxpayer to fund that which you are unwilling to fund? How can you ask a taxpayer to fund a welfare system to do that which you would not do?

Unless all of you who hold the no abortion without exception point of view are willing to commit to all of this for every single unplanned unwanted baby, then I think this absolutist ideology is unreasonable, judgmental, and unrealistically idealistic.

christine  posted on  2006-08-16 13:56:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Can't type "baby" when we want to kill the baby. "Product" ... "thing" ... if somebody screws up and the "thing" gets born, are you OK with killing him/her then (at five days, or six months, or a year)? Why not? What's the difference?

First, in my mind, there is a huge difference between a pregnancy resulting from an act that was forced upon me and an accidental one in which I was a willing participant. To me, the result of the forced one would be a thing- -certainly I could not view IT as a baby. I would be crazed knowing the seed of a demon was inside of me and I'd have no guilt or compunction ridding my body of it as soon as possible.

Now to answer your second question, no, I am not ok with anyone killing a child after birth. Once a fetus is viable and can live on its own outside of a woman's womb, in my opinion, it's its own life.

christine  posted on  2006-08-16 21:31:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I can not engage this thread because I'll say something I'll regret. Let is suffice to say I believe ABORTION/INFANTICIDE is MURDER and one of the most violent and obscene forms of death and genocide on the planet. Women supporting such violence and death, makes me want to puke, as do women who say the father has no rights. You gave a legal and moral say when you spread your legs baby.

It's pretty obvious where I stand. I no longer engage in a logical argument on this topic because the believers in infanticide can not be reasoned with. They're possessed.

It's not just a moral issue. It's a Constitutional issue..the RIGHT TO LIFE..LIBERTY..etc. Those who give their concern to the oppressed people's of the world, the innocents dying in wars, the painful deaths of animals at slaughter, etc...show extreme hypocrisy supporting infanticide.
Now, away from here before I read any more pro baby murder comments and have to puke my guts out.

So much for my first sentence. /rant

IndieTX  posted on  2006-08-17 01:54:35 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]