Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Yet science tell us that DNA is life. For is not DNA what regulates, controls and instructs life in its basic functions and building. Science may not be able to agree on what is life, but science can agree on what characteristics all life shares:

1) Living things need to take in energy
2) Living things get rid of waste
3) Living things grow and develop
4) Living things respond to their environment
5) Living things reproduce and pass their traits onto their offspring
6) Over time, living things evolve (change slowly) in response to their environment

You just described fire.

An identical twin is the result of a single fertilized egg splitting into two separate embryos. For all practical purposes a natural clone. Or more simply it reproduced and passed its traits on.......how uniquely living.

If it's an 'existing human being', at conception, then which twin is the original and which is the copy?



So when does it? According to Roe v Wade, the second and third trimesters the state had the right to regulate abortion. Casey changed that to concept of viability (approximately 22 weeks) as science changed......so what happens when science leads to an even earlier state of viability???

When that happens, the law will be changed to reflect it. BUT, while science has enabled doctors to save more premature feti, they do not seem to be able to 'push back' that wall of viability.

The question of abortion has nothing to do with taking control of the life or body of a person,

Tell that to a pregnant woman who is refused an abortion.

but rather whether or not government has the right to make an individual responsible for their own actions.

You don't know much about law. The government can only 'make an individual responsible for their own actions' IF it has a legal interest in the outcome. The government has no interest in seeing that a specific embryo/fetus is born before viability.

The very basis of the idea of liberty comes from our Constitution, yet the same Constitution that on the broad shoulders of liberty that has allowed abortion also states that it was ordained for ourselves and our posterity, and the most basic of all liberties is life, for without life, there are no other liberties.

That Constitution also states that ONLY the born are citizens, and that the government does NOT have the right to invade the privacy of those citizens without reason. As I previously stated, the government has no interest in seeing that a particular embryo is gestated, therefore, no right to invade the privacy of the woman.



But once again if science does support the statement then it is not immoral nor a violation of the Doctors First Amendment life.

Living things need to take in energy......Yes a fertilized egg takes in energy and supplements.

Living things get rid of waste..... A fertilized egg release waste through osmosis.

Living things grow and develop. A fertilized egg grows from a single cell to a multicellular organism containing other cells and organs.

Living things respond to their environment. A fertilized egg responds to the environment of the uterus, taking in nutrients, and moving its position to maximize it sustainment.

Living things reproduce and pass their traits on to their offsprings. Again a fertilized egg grows from a single cell organism into a multicellular organism. In the case of identical twins it actually reproduces its own life.

Over time living things evolve (change slowly) in response to their environment. Hmm when the fetus has reached maturity it causes itself to be borne, leaving the environment of the uterus where it breathed oxygen through liquid into the world environment where it will breath oxygen through air.

So now where exactly does science not support the contention that what is being aborted is not life. There was no dishonesty, but rather stark truth in telling a woman that when she has an abortion she is ending a life.

You need to read the article a little better. Doctors were not being forced to tell their patients that the embryo was 'life', but was an "Existing human being". If science agreed on that point, then where did the judges come up with the idea that it doesn't?




Our forefathers also believed that no one can be deprived of life without the due process of the law. You want an abortion, prove to a jury of your peers why it is necessary and should be allowed. But wait, even if the jury agrees with you, you must go through the appeals process. On average that is about 12 years.

Forcing a woman to put her personal decisions to a vote, is not 'due process'. It's a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.





dmk

Originally Posted by fxashun

Until she becomes pregnant. No one forced her to have sex. And if she was forced, then there should be abortioni recourse. But once the "choice" to have sex with any one you want results in the beginning of a life, the decision to end that life should be supported by something more substantial than "choice".

Originally Posted by Catus Felidae

Originally Posted by ccvasquez

catus felidae

But whether or not it is 'life' is not the question when abortion is the debate. The only question relevant to the legality of abortion is: WHEN does the state have the right to take control of the life and body of person A for person B's benefit?

So it seems you are in the same camp as Mr. Jaggers: the legality of an issue is the sole determiner of its morality.

Nazis, slaveholders, and dictators worldwide rejoice.

Originally Posted by fxashun

And why would you ask a question based on another question based on something I never said?

Right here.

Until she becomes pregnant. No one forced her to have sex. And if she was forced, then there should be abortioni recourse. But once the "choice" to have sex with any one you want results in the beginning of a life, the decision to end that life should be supported by something more substantial than "choice".



And I thought a "debate" required an exchange of ideas, not irrational questions created from the thin air.

Originally Posted by knot_e_lady

Morality is personal, and shouldn't be legislated.