Some religions are pro life and some are pro choice.
There is a diversity of views that exist within the U.S. and Canada concerning abortion access.
Different religions view translations of Bible verses differently.
For example the Jehovah's Witness are urged to refuse blood transfusions based on four passages of the Bible.
But other Christian and Jewish faith groups interpet the same Bible passages as refering to dietary laws.
Jehovah's Witnesses: Teachings on blood transfusionsJehovah's Witness' beliefs and teachings about blood transfusions:
Some conservative Christian denominations urge or require their members to abandon all medical treatment in favor of prayer.
This policy results in a very large number of infant and child deaths in these groups.
However, we are aware of only one Christian faith group -- the Jehovah's Witnesses --
that permits or encourages its members to accept medical treatments while
urging them to refuse to accept blood transfusions for themselves or their children.
The Witnesses' beliefs are mainly based on four passages in the Bible.
To our knowledge, all other Christian and Jewish faith groups
interpret these same passages as referring to dietary laws;
i.e. to the actual eating of meat containing blood.
The USA is supposed to keep Church and State seperate.
The USA should not base laws on a certain religion.
I can certainly appreciate your position in wanting to get this quickly behind you, but the fact of the matter is that you are attempting to spin what you were doing... and spin what I was doing. Not appreciated.
Now that we have wiped the slate clean of your previous preposterous suppositions about what the Constitution does or does not say, maybe we can further have a conversation about whether or not the government, as you have indicated in the past that it cannot, can make decisions regarding protecting our unborn fellow citizens.
I would posit that the government, WE THE PEOPLE, can and do make just these kinds of decisions and have since, even previous to, ratification. Does the federal government under enumerated, implied and amendments allow for this? That would be a good discussion. However, As provided in the Bill of Rights, Amendments 9 & 10 [ also stated much earlier in our discussion ], should open up to critical discussion and thought, at very least to a reasonable "born person", that our government, WE THE PEOPLE, have those rights should WE desire them.
9th Amendment = The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
10th = The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
You have also previously stated that DNA is not established upon conception, which is ALSO provably incorrect...
So oh, thanks for making it so easy [well, except maybe for all the spinning... and the tremendous amount of lag time required for acceptance of just how provably incorrect you have repeatedly been].
Last edited by Gaugingcatenate; 05-21-13 at 09:40 PM.
In between these extremes are two more promising alternatives.
The first alternative is offered by scholars who believe that conception
occurs when the haploid genomes contributed by the egg and sperm
combine to form the diploid embryonic genome, roughly twenty-four
hours after insemination.15In scientific terms, the human life cycle alternates between two
distinct stages: a diploid stage (human embryos, infants, and adults)
and a haploid gametic stage (human eggs and sperm). During the
diploid stage, all human cells have the full complement of nuclear
DNA — two copies of the twenty-three distinct human chromosomes
and, thus, a total of forty-six chromosomes. During the haploid stage,
the diploid cells that give rise to egg and sperm go through a process
called meiosis in which they shed half of their chromosomes, leaving
only twenty-three unpaired chromosomes. When the gametes fuse,
the process is reversed; two sets of twenty-three singleton
chromosomes are matched up and eventually begin to function as a
new diploid genome. With that transition, a new diploid organism
comes into existenceBecause the transition from the haploid genomes of the sperm and
egg to the functioning diploid genome of an early embryo is gradual
and extends over several days, the normative question is how far the
process must advance before the living cells which undergo it are
entitled to the protections and legal status assigned by laws triggered
at conception. Although only a few scholars have attempted to answer
this question, those who have done so have reached very different
conclusions. Several possibilities have been suggested, including (1)
penetration of the ovum by a sperm, (2) assembly of the new
embryonic genome, (3) successful activation of that genome, and (4)
implantation of the embryo in the uterus. Choosing among these
options obliges us to identify the attributes that make early embryos
morally different from sperm and egg and to identify the point in the
process of transformation when those attributes appear.
There is no formal legislative history to guide the courts on this
question. Indeed, most of the lawmakers who voted in favor of these
statutes probably assumed that the transition occurs as the sperm
penetrates the egg. Because that assumption is incorrect, the courts
must look elsewhere for guidance.
Under these circumstances, the search for a rationale reasonably
begins by examining the arguments made by the supporters of these
life-begins-at-conception laws. The four attributes of the early embryo
which are most commonly offered as a basis for recognizing life from
the moment of conception are (1) the fertilized egg’s potential to
become a child (and thus an undisputed moral agent), (2) its selfdirected
development, (3) its genetic completeness, and (4) its
individuality.68Proponents of elevated moral status from the time of conception
typically point out that early embryos combine genetic completeness
with self-direction. They are right to argue that the combination of
genetic completeness and internal propulsion has normative
significance. This combination of attributes distinguishes early
embryos from gametes (which are self-directed, but haploid) and from
ordinary body cells (which are diploid, but not propelled to become
A few experts believe that these two conditions are satisfied as soon
as a sperm enters the ovum.86 They base this conclusion on the fact
that penetration of the ovum by a single sperm activates the ovum and
begins a process of continuous development that, if successful, will
result in the birth of a child.87 Once the two cells have merged into
one, the inseminated ovum contains all of the genetic raw material
needed to build a new diploid genome and is internally propelled to
do so.88 At insemination, therefore, the future person’s unique genetic
code has been determined, even though it has not yet been assembled
into a single diploid genome.
Given this internal propulsion and the presence of all the needed
genetic materials within the walls of the fertilized egg, supporters of
this view do not see the embryo’s lack of an assembled and
functioning embryonic genome as critical. Instead, the eventual
assembly and activation of the embryonic genome are seen as
subsequent steps in a process commenced when a sperm enters the
ovum. At this point, a genetically distinct and complete organism has
“embarked upon its own distinctive development.”89
Yet the claims of genetic sameness and completeness vastly overstate
the sharpness of the distinction between the haploid and diploid stages
prior to assembly of the embryonic genome.90 In the hours following
insemination, the maternal and paternal chromosomes are segregated
into separate nuclei. At this stage, the fertilized egg really has two
haploid genomes, each in its own nucleus, not a diploid genome. In
fact, there is no “embryonic genome” at this time. Instead, the
embryo’s development is being directed by maternal proteins and
As a consequence, both conservative and liberal commentators have
concluded that the entry of a sperm into the ovum is not sufficient to
justify the conclusion that a new human life has been conceived.
Instead, most would wait until the genome has been assembled. In
effect, they acknowledge that the emerging embryo lacks sufficient
self-direction and genetic completeness to deserve privileged moral
and legal status before it has a diploid genome. Most probably also
assume that the diploid genome will thereafter direct the embryo’s
development. Yet, scientists have learned that the newly formed
diploid genome does not assume immediate control of the embryo’s
development. Instead, it remains dormant for two more cell divisions.
Thus, the embryo does not become a diploid organism (i.e., one
governed by a diploid genome) until it reaches at least the eight-cell
A fetus is not a PERSON under U.S. law.
here are three key points that were decided in the Roe vs Wade case.
Roe v Wade - edited textThree key points:
A fetus in not a PERSON under U.S. law.
Persons have rights under the Constitution, and it is clear that
the authors of the Constitution and its amendments did not regard fetuses as persons.
In order to say that fetuses are persons under U.S. law, the Constitution would have to be amended to say so. Therefore the intentional killing of a fetus does not have same legal status as the killing of a person.
States can create laws to protect citizens from harmful practices, and it can ban medical procedures that are harmful. When abortion was initially banned by most states, it was a dangerous procedure. Medically, it is now safer than childbirth. Therefore there is no longer a good reason for states to ban it as a medical practice.
Since 1891, the U.S. has recognized a right to privacy in some "zones" of activity, which means that individuals can make decisions and act upon them without informing other people and without state interference. (Example: Your discussions with your lawyer are private and confidential.) The court has previously recognized that adult women have a privacy right when it comes to contraception and reproduction.
Conclusion: Because fetuses are not legally protected and abortion is a safe medical procedure protected by privacy rights, adult women have the right to receive an abortion in the first six months of pregnancy, and states can only interfere where the interference is appropriate to the woman's health.
It is according to feticide laws "a child in utero"...not a person.
He is also facing charges of interfering with interstate commerce.(because he intentionaly swapped medicatuion.)
Read more: FBI charged man with murder after, they say, he tricked girlfriend into taking abortion pillis now facing first-degree murder and interfering with interstate commerce charges.
According to a federal arrest affidavit, Welden swapped out his girlfriend's antibiotics with abortion pills, specifically Cytotec.
I appreciate that the left likes to co-opt words and phrases for their own mangled meanings, however, I believe in the purity of the English language. Too bad you believe the term pro-choice is solely code for pro-abortion whereas I actually believe pro-choice is code for believing that people should be free to make their own choice about almost anything, including abortion.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.