Nadya Suleman Quotes

Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

All human life at every stage of its development is worthy of protection.

Instead of the traditional emphasis on the sanctity of life, bioethics began to stress the quality of life, meaning that many damaged humans, young and old, don't qualify for personhood because their lives have lost value.

When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters. I thought, we can't keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way.

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix.

I don't believe the fertilised egg can be equated with the sort of human life that you and I represent, or our children represent.

What is a human embryo? Is it a person or is it a piece of property.

I'm opposed to abortion because I happen to believe that life deserves the protection of society.

We should control fertility clinics so that they do not create spare human beings. They are spare people.

Science can and should inform debate about abortion and the law. But science does not resolve questions of moral value and moral choice.

If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.

A man is ethical only when life, as such, is sacred to him.

Life means nothing to you, at least that's what they say. But it doesn't mean that you have the right to take life away.

Abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, for example, risk reducing the human person to a mere object: life and death to order, as it were!

As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the quality of life ethic. I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has always given to this basic question, and the answer that I hope and pray it will give in the future.

If you're uncertain when life begins, why not give the unborn the benefit of the doubt and oppose abortion?

I hope that we have a culture that values every human life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.

I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.

In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier mankilling; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in the seed.

It's not easy to shed the idea that human life is sacred.

The decision to give an indicative date for a return is a mistake. It degrades the process. It degrades human life.

Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That's what the Mafia does.

The death of a single human being is too heavy a price for the vindication of any principle, however sacred.

It is not 'progressive' to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life.

The right to life is the first human right. Abortion is killing someone that cannot defend himself.