Posted on 11/22/2001 10:59:38 PM PST by toenail
FDA unleashes new threat to human babies
"In the midst of a terror campaign and a frightening battle against anthrax, the FDA has somehow been able to find the time to sanction yet another form of baby killing," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "The newly-approved birth control patch uses the same abortion-causing chemicals used in many other so-called contraceptives."
With its approval of the birth control patch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has now approved its fourth new "contraceptive" option in the last year. The skin patch has been added to a collection that already includes a monthly injection, a hormone-emitting IUD, and a hormone-emitting contraceptive ring.
"All these devices deliver the same hormones to the woman's body and all work in the same manner," said Mrs. Brown. "They all affect the uterine lining and prevent implantation of a newly-conceived human being, thus causing the end of that human being's life."
"The FDA should be ashamed of itself," said Mrs. Brown. "All Americans should reject this new form of baby killing and seek to protect all innocent human life, from fertilization to natural death."
Release issued: 21 Nov 01
©2001 American Life League, Inc.
Morals are an individual thing, not someting imposed on one human being by another. Why can't you people just live your own unhappy lives. Why must you insist that everyone else carry your burdens of guilt and unhappiness? I know misery loves company but I draw the line when misery demands company.
The Christian God gives man the freedom of choice. Why can't you follow in his footsteps?
I see you lived up to my expectations, the same old poor women views I often see from you.
Morals are an individual thing, not someting imposed on one human being by another. Why can't you people just live your own unhappy lives. Why must you insist that everyone else carry your burdens of guilt and unhappiness? I know misery loves company but I draw the line when misery demands company.
Morals are not an individual thing it is the basis of our culture in the United States. People want to destroy morals because they aren't convenient. I'll wager that you would argue that men have no say in a pregnancy (I hope I'm wrong).
I was trying to be nice before and point out that morals are necessary. I was hoping that you would simply reply that morals are good, but that's not going to happen.
1. What is it that constitutes a human being? Is it simply the possession of human DNA? The hair follicles that have all too rapidly been leaving the top of my head contain human DNA but are not considered to be a human.
2. I notice the term potential human life is often used but potential and actual realization, are two entirely different things. With cloning technology the DNA in my hair follicles may have the potential to become a twin of myself.
3. What separates humans from other living animals? I think the big difference is the recognition of self, human consciousness. The realization that you are a separate entity with your own dreams goals and desires to create your own future. Do the unborn possess the realization that they have their own self-identity goals dreams etc? PETA assumes animals possess the same consciousness as humans, most people want PETA to prove that contention before they accept it.
4. Maybe it is the ability to develop into an autonomous human being if left to their own devices. The problem with this argument is that the unborn are completely dependent on one specific individual. Unless you accept that the needs of one constitute entitlement to the resources of another you need to allow the pregnant women a choice.
5. The argument is often made that having sex constitutes a voluntary acceptance of all potential consequences. Leaving aside rape, which nobody contends is voluntary, you are left with interesting questions of what constitutes a voluntary contract and who exactly is involved in a valid contract. At the time the contract is entered into the unborn child does not exist by any ones definition, conception occurs sometime afterwards. How is it possible for someone who does not yet exist to enter into a contract that is binding on another human being?
6. For a contract to be valid it must identify the parties involved. Since no one except God can know which sperm will penetrate the egg or even if any sperm will accomplish that task, the future potential unborn child can not be legally identified at the time the contract is supposedly made.
7. For a contract to be binding consideration is necessary, something of value must be exchanged. What of value has the unborn offered to the woman in exchange for the use of the woman’s body? In order to be a valid consideration it must be something that the woman in question considers to be of value.
8. The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids involuntary servitude. Absent a legally binding voluntary contract, forcing a woman to allow the use of her body by another individual would seem to constitute involuntary servitude.
You are right about that. And you are never going to admit to being among the "we flush humans down the toilet" crowd.
What constitutes a human being is being the original entity conceived by a sperm and egg. Like you.
2. I notice the term potential human life is often used but potential and actual realization, are two entirely different things. With cloning technology the DNA in my hair follicles may have the potential to become a twin of myself.
This is not a pro-life arguement, but a pro-killing one.
3. What separates humans from other living animals?
Many things. We also have a lot in common.
I think the big difference is the recognition of self, human consciousness. The realization that you are a separate entity with your own dreams goals and desires to create your own future. Do the unborn possess the realization that they have their own self-identity goals dreams etc? PETA assumes animals possess the same consciousness as humans, most people want PETA to prove that contention before they accept it.
Many of the already born fit the above criteria. Should others have the right to kill them? Isn't this a choice?
4. Maybe it is the ability to develop into an autonomous human being if left to their own devices. The problem with this argument is that the unborn are completely dependent on one specific individual. Unless you accept that the needs of one constitute entitlement to the resources of another you need to allow the pregnant women a choice.
The woman has presumably already made her choice by having sex.
5. The argument is often made that having sex constitutes a voluntary acceptance of all potential consequences. Leaving aside rape, which nobody contends is voluntary, you are left with interesting questions of what constitutes a voluntary contract and who exactly is involved in a valid contract. At the time the contract is entered into the unborn child does not exist by any ones definition, conception occurs sometime afterwards. How is it possible for someone who does not yet exist to enter into a contract that is binding on another human being?
Negligence of having brought said person into being.
6. For a contract to be valid it must identify the parties involved. Since no one except God can know which sperm will penetrate the egg or even if any sperm will accomplish that task, the future potential unborn child can not be legally identified at the time the contract is supposedly made.
What's the question?
7. For a contract to be binding consideration is necessary, something of value must be exchanged. What of value has the unborn offered to the woman in exchange for the use of the woman’s body? In order to be a valid consideration it must be something that the woman in question considers to be of value.
The paties in question should have thought of that before they entered the contract.
8. The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids involuntary servitude. Absent a legally binding voluntary contract, forcing a woman to allow the use of her body by another individual would seem to constitute involuntary servitude.
It's not the baby's fault that she took the risk of conception.
8. The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids involuntary servitude. Absent a legally binding voluntary contract, forcing a woman to allow the use of her body by another individual would seem to constitute involuntary servitude. 29 posted by Concentrate
Oh yes...morality is relative, right? Wrong. What great tolerance you have for those that honor life rather than murdering babies...not.
God does give man/woman freedom of choice...free will. He would never condone a woman murdering her baby. Perhaps you should reconsider your footsteps and align them with His.
You are authorized to speak for God?
Mm hmm-a distinct human organism, but not a baby. Big, big difference.
I have done so above.
Would you care to specify just exactly when in a pregnancy you would honor a miscarried baby with the human trappings of a name, funeral, burial, tombstone, etc?
When I see the majority of the anti-abortionist crowd treating their two week old miscarried fetuses like humans then maybe I will start to believe that you actually believe what you preach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.