Life Begins at Conception, Says Department of Health and Human Services

[TomSea]

Life Begins at Conception, Says Department of Health and Human Services
October 13, 2017 By Harvest Prude

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) just released their 2018-2022 plan, which unequivocally states that life begins at conception and deserves protection. In the introduction it says,

    “HHS accomplishes its mission through programs and initiatives that cover a wide spectrum of activities, serving and protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception.”

The draft mentions conception five times total. The overwhelmingly pro-life stance in the draft is welcome news to many.



Read more at: http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/life-begins-at-conception-says-department-hhs/

Totally agree with Cruz in the above tweet, no matter whom the Republicans elected, as long as they were pro-life, I would vote for them, it be Trump, Cruz and so on.

[TomSea]

For once, I think this is something that almost everyone agrees on.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

For once, I think this is something that almost everyone agrees on.

Have you alerted @Jazzhead ?  It remains inanimate tissue until he says otherwise.

[Jazzhead]

Have you alerted @Jazzhead ?  It remains inanimate tissue until he says otherwise.

Nonsense.  Of course life begins at conception (actually,  at implantation, which is a significant difference).   The question is who as a legal matter has dominion over a fetus that is not yet viable.   The woman or the state?   I say the woman, you say the state.   The fundamental problem I have with social conservatism is that it is so cocksure of its moral position that it would force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.   

The way to advance that moral position is persuasion, not coercion.   It's the better, more effective way.  It is also, philosophically, the more conservative way because it respects individual liberty and does not deploy the government gun.

[musiclady]

Nonsense.  Of course life begins at conception (actually,  at implantation, which is a significant difference).   The question is who as a legal matter has dominion over a fetus that is not yet viable.   The woman or the state?   I say the woman, you say the state.   The fundamental problem I have with social conservatism is that it is so cocksure of its moral position that it would force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.   

The way to advance that moral position is persuasion, not coercion.   It's the better, more effective way.  It is also, philosophically, the more conservative way because it respects individual liberty and does not deploy the government gun.

Well, jazz.......... I'm sure you don't mind that "the state" has laws against your Mom if she kills you, right??

You believe YOU should be protected by law, but you believe a helpless, wee human baby can be killed if his or her Mom doesn't think he or she should be able to live.

Us horrible social conservatives want YOU protected, even if your Mom doesn't want you.

SHAME on us.

[truth_seeker]

Or "Quickening?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening

[INVAR]

Well, jazz.......... I'm sure you don't mind that "the state" has laws against your Mom if she kills you, right??

You believe YOU should be protected by law, but you believe a helpless, wee human baby can be killed if his or her Mom doesn't think he or she should be able to live.

Us horrible social conservatives want YOU protected, even if your Mom doesn't want you.

SHAME on us.

You're attempting to reason with an agent of promoting abject evil as a good.

Pearls and swine apply here.

[Jazzhead]

You're attempting to reason with an agent of promoting abject evil as a good.

Persuasion is more effective at saving unborn lives than coercion.   Why are you so afraid of it?

[Jazzhead]

Or "Quickening?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening

Good point, TS.  There was traditionally a recognition that a woman had legal dominion over the life growing in her body at least until the point of quickening.   

[truth_seeker]

Good point, TS.  There was traditionally a recognition that a woman had legal dominion over the life growing in her body at least until the point of quickening.

"Abortion in early America.
Acevedo Z.
Abstract
This piece describes abortion practices in use from the 1600s to the 19th century among the inhabitants of North America. The abortive techniques of women from different ethnic and racial groups as found in historical literature are revealed. Thus, the point is made that abortion is not simply a "now issue" that effects select women. Instead, it is demonstrated that it is a widespread practice as solidly rooted in our past as it is in the present.
PIP:
Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. As a result, many women began to utilize illegal underground abortion services. Although abortion was legalized in 1970, many women are still forced to obtain illegal abortion or to perform self-abortions due to the economic constraints imposed by the Hyde Amendment and the unavailability of services in many areas. Throughout the colonial period and during the early years of the republic, the abortion situation for slave women was different than for other women. Slaves were subject to the rules of their owners, and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate pregnancies. The owners wanted their slaves to produce as many children as possible since these children belonged to the slave owners. This situation persisted until the end of the slavery era"

Note: "The British colonies," became the USA.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297561

[roamer_1]

Nonsense.  Of course life begins at conception (actually,  at implantation, which is a significant difference).   The question is who as a legal matter has dominion over a fetus that is not yet viable.   The woman or the state?   I say the woman, you say the state.   The fundamental problem I have with social conservatism is that it is so cocksure of its moral position that it would force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.   

No, The legal question indeed revolves around when life begins. Roe v. Wade is rendered moot if life begins at conception.

A woman having to bear a child to term is a small price to pay in the course and defense of the life of the child.
If life does in fact begin at conception, then what you defend is a woman's right to murder.
Against the right of the father.
And against the life of the child.

[musiclady]

Persuasion is more effective at saving unborn lives than coercion.   Why are you so afraid of it?

Why are you afraid of admitting that the dreaded "state" (that you pretend to oppose) protects you from being murdered by your mother, but that you think that innocent children should be murdered if their mothers don't want to give birth to them.............. for whatever reason they can come up with?

Why do you have such conflicted views about who's valuable enough to live and who's not?

And why are you so arrogant as to think YOU are more important than THEY are??

@Jazzhead

[Bigun]

If the union of a human sperm an a human egg is not a human being what the heck is it?

[Jazzhead]

Why do you have such conflicted views about who's valuable enough to live and who's not?

And why are you so arrogant as to think YOU are more important than THEY are??

@Jazzhead

I am of no importance.  I maintain simply that a woman has dominion over the decision to reproduce.  Not the state.  Not until quickening or, perhaps, the point where pain can be felt.   

[INVAR]

Persuasion is more effective at saving unborn lives than coercion.   Why are you so afraid of it?

You persuade no one but yourself.

[musiclady]

I am of no importance.  I maintain simply that a woman has dominion over the decision to reproduce.  Not the state.  Not until quickening or, perhaps, the point where pain can be felt.

You apparently aren't well-informed enough to realize how deeply and permanently harmful having an abortion is to a woman.

Abortion is the worst thing that's happened to the progress and equality of women in America.  It degrades women, it kills FAR more little girls than little boys, it harms bodies, souls and spirits.

If you cared about women........ really............ you'd oppose abortion with the same fervor that you promote and defend it here.

And DO stop using that idiotic argument about "the state" as though you actually care about limiting the power of government.  It is "the state" that made up the "right" to abortion, and it is "the state" that is responsible for enforcing this hideous law and harming millions of women all over the country.

Your leftist argument is bogus.  You are ANTI woman.

[TomSea]

Persuasion is more effective at saving unborn lives than coercion.   Why are you so afraid of it?

And that's rather condescending, "coercion", maybe those being coerced are those young girls who are too confused to know what to do.

[TomSea]

You apparently aren't well-informed enough to realize how deeply and permanently harmful having an abortion is to a woman.

Abortion is the worst thing that's happened to the progress and equality of women in America.  It degrades women, it kills FAR more little girls than little boys, it harms bodies, souls and spirits.

If you cared about women........ really............ you'd oppose abortion with the same fervor that you promote and defend it here.

And DO stop using that idiotic argument about "the state" as though you actually care about limiting the power of government.  It is "the state" that made up the "right" to abortion, and it is "the state" that is responsible for enforcing this hideous law and harming millions of women all over the country.

Your leftist argument is bogus.  You are ANTI woman.

+1.

I could interpret it as being a sexist argument that JH is making.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Nonsense.  Of course life begins at conception (actually,  at implantation, which is a significant difference).   The question is who as a legal matter has dominion over a fetus that is not yet viable.   The woman or the state?   I say the woman, you say the state.   The fundamental problem I have with social conservatism is that it is so cocksure of its moral position that it would force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.   

The way to advance that moral position is persuasion, not coercion.   It's the better, more effective way.  It is also, philosophically, the more conservative way because it respects individual liberty and does not deploy the government gun.

I know you will refuse to, but can you let us all know how you define the word 'viable'?

Absent an effective definition, viability begins when life begins, at conception.

[berdie]

Good point, TS.  There was traditionally a recognition that a woman had legal dominion over the life growing in her body at least until the point of quickening.

IMHO..a woman has legal dominion over her body because she has access to birth control, or an aspirin  held tightly her knees.

After that..all bets are off. You are hosting another human being.

[Bigun]

IMHO..a woman has legal dominion over her body because she has access to birth control, or an aspirin  held tightly her knees.

After that..all bets are off. You are hosting another human being.

It is an indisputable fact of life that you cannot have personal liberty without also accepting personal responsibility.

[Polly Ticks]

I am of no importance.  I maintain simply that a woman has dominion over the decision to reproduce.  Not the state.  Not until quickening or, perhaps, the point where pain can be felt.

Even if you don't believe that life begins at conception, quickening is a pretty poor measure considering that a woman who has previously carried a child can recognize a baby's movements in the womb weeks before a first-time mother usually does.

[musiclady]

+1.

I could interpret it as being a sexist argument that JH is making.

I completely agree.

The damage abortion has done to women is immeasurable.

Advocating that mothers have the right to kill their own children is reprehensible.

@Jazzhead has been taken in by the leftist lie that abortion is compassionate toward women, when it is extremely sexist against women.


(And I haven't even brought in the femicide taking place all over the world because of this hideous "right" that leftists around the world have made up out of whole cloth.  The wholesale slaughter of infant girls is one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed).

[Right_in_Virginia]

Absent an effective definition, viability begins when life begins, at conception.

Actually, there is a definition of viability:

fetal viability

The ability of a fetus to survive outside of the womb. Historically, a fetus was considered to be capable of living at the end of gestational week 20 when the mother had felt fetal movement (quickening) and the fetal heart tones could be auscultated with a fetoscope.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fetal+viability

Surviving outside the womb includes supporting the (premature) baby with up-to-date medicine.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Actually, there is a definition of viability:

Surviving outside the womb includes supporting the (premature) baby with up-to-date medicine.

So how does an abortionist know whether he is committing murder or just taking a life, which begins at birth as @Jazzhead declared?