Abortion as Murder.

[BenNatuf]

The big problem with this issue is that people who are uneducated on the biology and embryology need to draw their lines in the sand at extreme points that are over simplified, regardless of actual processes. As someone else mentioned, a very large percentage of conceptions are naturally aborted, and no one even realized the woman is pregnant. To claim the destruction of any conception is murder denies our very biology.

logical falacy. Everyone dies, not everyone is killed.

The other issue is that the term "murder" is always reduced to a black and white issue by most people, instead of analyzed in an ethical perspective. What does "murder" mean and imply exactly?

Intentionally and illegally taking the life of another person without due process of law.

Does it apply in self-defense?

of course not, thats called justifiable homicide and its not illegal

Neglect?

negligent homicide is manslaughter, not murder

Does it apply to animals? Plants? Bacteria?

of course not, why would it apply to food? You cannot murder an animal, a plant or bacteria

Does intention matter?

of course it does, you cannot murder without intent, thats part of the definition of the crime.

Does it apply if it allows for release from pain?

Who's pain?

ETHICS are generally not considered by people who discuss abortion in terms of "murder," as that term tells me the person is just jumping on a loaded word instead of making strong arguments on the actual topic.

you mean like the rather weak and specious arguments you just attempted to make? What you've posted here has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with justifications... otherwise known as excuses.

 

[BenNatuf]

The big problem with this issue is that people who are uneducated on the biology and embryology need to draw their lines in the sand at extreme points that are over simplified, regardless of actual processes. As someone else mentioned, a very large percentage of conceptions are naturally aborted, and no one even realized the woman is pregnant. To claim the destruction of any conception is murder denies our very biology.

That’s the key word isn't it...a women probably wont know she is pregnant till after four weeks, So I don't see were "at conception" really matters. unless you have a problem with birth control pills, I have no problem with them. Even morning after pills, but that’s just me others do.

The other issue is that the term "murder" is always reduced to a black and white issue by most people, instead of analyzed in an ethical perspective. What does "murder" mean and imply exactly? Does it apply in self-defense? Neglect? Does it apply to animals? Plants? Bacteria? Does intention matter? Does it apply if it allows for release from pain? ETHICS are generally not considered by people who discuss abortion in terms of "murder," as that term tells me the person is just jumping on a loaded word instead of making strong arguments on the actual topic.

It might have been her intent when she put the "loaded" word murder in the title, Sure the hell gets people's blood boiling doesn't it.

Her?

I put the wrod in the title because the entire thread was bought about by the muders in the philly abortion clinic.

 

[BenNatuf]

An abortion is a homicide, yes; a murder ipso facto, no.

Claiming abortion is not murder simply because it goes unprosecuted is ipso facto falacious. Lots of crimes go unprosecuted... they are no less crimes.

 

[Dr Grump]

An abortion is a homicide, yes; a murder ipso facto, no.

Claiming abortion is not murder simply because it goes unprosecuted is ipso facto falacious. Lots of crimes go unprosecuted... they are no less crimes.

But who gets decide what a crime is?

 

[BenNatuf]

Murder is a legal term, not a personal definition, BenNatuf. If you can get a law passed to make abortion an act of murder, go for it.

Yes it is a legal term, and under Roe and Casey the state has an interest in preserving the LIFE of a viable fetus. That interest is drawn from the states DUTY to not deprive persons of life, liberty or property without due process of law. If the viable fetus is not a person, what interest does the state have? What other persons are exempt as a class from protections? This is not a "personal deffinition" it's a LEGAL deffinition. To claim the state has an interest in preserving these lives and claim they're not persons... that is a personal deffinition not supported by the law. Are not all persons required to be afforded the same protections? Are there any other persons not protected by the statutes against murder? There doen't need to be any "other" laws passed, they merely have to choose to enforce the ones we have equally.

 

[BenNatuf]

Don't you dare compare ALL victims of WWII with abortion. Don't even belong in the same paragraph. Unless you're a religous zealot..

...oh..

...that's right...
you are....

By what deserved arrogance do you claim the right to tell anyone what comparisons they can make?

By what deserved arrogance do you claim the right to tell me that I can't?

I didn't tell you you couldn't.

 

[BenNatuf]

No, the law defines what is murder, not you. When the law is passed that makes abortion murder, you can crow.

Right now you get to eat it.

still false and constantly repeating it won't change that. Murder is defined and aborting a viable fetus can be construed to fit the statutes. It's not, but thats not because it doesn't fit the definition. It is a logical falacy to assume that because a law is not enforced it is not the law.

 

[BenNatuf]

do you understand that other religions don't believe that and by trying to legislate it you're trying to legislate your religious beliefs?

no problem with your belief... as long as you don't impose it on others.

aside from the fact that legislation against abortion would be based on biology and medical science... who cares what any religion thinks? Your trying to justify abortion for the same reason your arguing against it.

A large majority of anti-abortionists think the way they do because of their religion. To say otherwise is not only disingenuous, but wrong.

so what? You think the way you do for your own reasons too. Why is irrelevant.

 

[Dr Grump]

By what deserved arrogance do you claim the right to tell anyone what comparisons they can make?

By what deserved arrogance do you claim the right to tell me that I can't?

I didn't tell you you couldn't.

You absolutely did...

 

[BenNatuf]

So, what sin did they commit

And Ill ask it in whatever forum I want to.....you're the one who started talking about sin....

No she's not. That was bought up long before she posted in the thread by some other anti religious nut who has no ability to discern what it is the threads about... which has nothing to do with sin.

She starting rabbiting on about it, so I ran with it...

no, you ran with it before she ever said a word about it.

Why?

Because the pro abortion croud ALWAYS wants to make any discussion of abortion about the religion of those who oppose it... so they can falaciously argue freedom FROM religion... which isn't found in the constitution anywhere.

 

[BenNatuf]

nope, I am not...you can call abortion a sin, and to me, it is a sin, and a sad one at that....

but YOU throwing the murderer word around so freely is quite disturbing....do you do this so you can entice some loony toon to commit murder themselves by shooting the doctors or girls in the abortion clinics on the basis that they are justly killing/murdering... murderers?

The subject of the thread is about defining the killing of a viable fetus as murder due to their status under Roe and Casey. A discussion that has come about due to botched abortions that have resulted in murders that no-one in their right mind will attempt to define as anything but murder. And here's the rub, these fetus' were viable IN THE WOMB just a few short moments before they were murdered out of the womb. Had the procedures not been botched they would have been no less viable, and the law according to roe should protect them. Thats what Roe determined the state can do. Thats what the thread is about... so yeah, a woman who aborts a viable fetus as determined under roe and casey could be called (and charged) as a muderer.

The politicizing a tragedy thread is -------> that way. Not saying that to be flippant, but thats kind of the logic isn't it? People are not driven to murder by the rhetoric of others, they are driven to murder for whatever reasons they use to justify it in their own mind.

What do you mean by 'botched abortion' as opposed to an 'abortion'...

if you attempt an abortion and end up with a live baby is it successful?

 

[Dr Grump]

aside from the fact that legislation against abortion would be based on biology and medical science... who cares what any religion thinks? Your trying to justify abortion for the same reason your arguing against it.

A large majority of anti-abortionists think the way they do because of their religion. To say otherwise is not only disingenuous, but wrong.

so what? You think the way you do for your own reasons too. Why is irrelevant.

Because abortion is a personal matter. And please, don't give me this crap about hitting kids on the head with a hammer BS either. The only country in the western world that gets its knickers in a knot over this is the US, and mainly due to uber religious folk. Folk of your ilk in other western countries are either religiou fanatics, or so far on the peripheral of society that they are thought of as the fringe. The only countries in the Western World where it is illegal are - surprisingly (NOT!) - those where Catholicism is the majority religion such as Ireland and Italy.

Many jurists and scholars - a lot more intelligent than me, and certainly a lot more intelligent than you - have debated on the case. In the case of the US Roe vs Wade was the deciding factor, whether you like it or not. In most other countries where it is legal, it is not even an issue.

 

[Dr Grump]

No she's not. That was bought up long before she posted in the thread by some other anti religious nut who has no ability to discern what it is the threads about... which has nothing to do with sin.

She starting rabbiting on about it, so I ran with it...

no, you ran with it before she ever said a word about it.

Why?

Because the pro abortion croud ALWAYS wants to make any discussion of abortion about the religion of those who oppose it... so they can falaciously argue freedom FROM religion... which isn't found in the constitution anywhere.

Go back and re read the thread for comprehension. She absolutely brought it up before "I ran with it". Where you are right, is that she wasn't the first on the thread.

As for the religious aspect, well that has a massive influence of the mindset of most anti-abortionists. BTW, I have never met a pro-abortionist, including on this thread....

 

[BenNatuf]

Sell it to the legislatures, Ben. Nobody here is buying your crap. The mother decides when it is the matter of her life or health, not you and not Joe the Rabbit.

I could give a shit what your buying. There is no need for any legislature to do anything. Any prosecutor who chose to could charge any woman and doctor with murder under current statutes given Roe and Casey. The theory is untested because no prosecutor has. That they have not has no bearing on whether they could. Would they be successful? Possibly, but that is likely to never be known since no prosecutor will likely ever do it.

 

[Dr Grump]

The subject of the thread is about defining the killing of a viable fetus as murder due to their status under Roe and Casey. A discussion that has come about due to botched abortions that have resulted in murders that no-one in their right mind will attempt to define as anything but murder. And here's the rub, these fetus' were viable IN THE WOMB just a few short moments before they were murdered out of the womb. Had the procedures not been botched they would have been no less viable, and the law according to roe should protect them. Thats what Roe determined the state can do. Thats what the thread is about... so yeah, a woman who aborts a viable fetus as determined under roe and casey could be called (and charged) as a muderer.

The politicizing a tragedy thread is -------> that way. Not saying that to be flippant, but thats kind of the logic isn't it? People are not driven to murder by the rhetoric of others, they are driven to murder for whatever reasons they use to justify it in their own mind.

What do you mean by 'botched abortion' as opposed to an 'abortion'...

if you attempt an abortion and end up with a live baby is it successful?

Ok, so now you are going around in circles with a superfluous argument....Time to bow out. When reasonable debate becomes unreasonable, then there is no point continuing..

 

[BenNatuf]

Human tissue which contains DNA is not a human being, a human person with consciousness or sentience.

The morning after pill is not murder.

Given that the morning after pill prevents conception I would tend to agree. Also I'm not entirely sold that conception is the point so much as implantation. persons cannot be held in stasis, embryo's can. Once implanted they cannot... just like any other person. That however is neither here nor there in the topic of this thread which has more to do with the states interest in preserving the lives of "viable" fetus' and why they don't do so with the same laws they do for any other class of person.

Um, because Roe vs Wade outstrips any state law. That is the way your country works...

Are you always this obtuse? It is under Roe and Casey that they could be protected as persons, thats what "viability" does. So yeahs, federal law does outstrip state law, and its federal law that permits states to protect viable fetus'

 

[BenNatuf]

No, ben, your reasoning is false.

No its not.

 

[BenNatuf]

BenNatuf

Your whole argument is based on treating an abortion like a murder (hiring a hitman, or hitting a child with a hammer). There is a reason the courts, and politicians, and most normal folk treat abortion as a separate entity than religious whackjobs do. They realise that it isn't like hitting your kid with a hammer or hiring a hitman, because it isn't. Any other asinine argument doesn't warrant discussion until your realise the difference between the two. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but a foetus at 2-3 months old is not a viable human - no matter how much you wish it so..

I see you always are this obtuse... where did I say anywhere that an unviable fetus should be treated as a person under the law?

oh wait... I didn't.

Killing a viable fetus is killing a person that the states have an interst in protecting, thats what roe says. So if they have an interest why shouldn't they allow those persons equal protection with any other person? And if they shouldn't, what other classes of persons are not deserving of equal protection? Which other classes of persons should we have seperate laws for?

 

[BenNatuf]

armed robbery is armed robbery, abortion is abortion, one is a crime and one is not.

false analogy, ben

the argument waqs that it shouldn't be against the law because people are going to choose to do it...

same logic chief.

 

[Missourian]

Yeah, because the world needs 50 million more people, right?

The answer to that depends greatly on which subset of the world you belong...the 350 million that were born in the US and can speak for themselves, or the 50 million that were aborted and have no voice.

Fair enough.

I believe that a woman should not abort, but also it is their choice (and their partners).

In saying that, I do have a problem with people trying to sell me that something that is only 2 months gestation is a viable anything, let alone a human.

Then there is the other aspect, that a lot of anti-abortionists see this as "god's childen" being punished by selfish people. I just see it as humans making a choice - one that most don't want to make BTW - but is there right to make.

Where anti-aboritionists lose me (to any valid aspect of their argument), is when they start sprouting out words like "abortion factories" like you just did. Like there's this group of woman lining up like it's the Macy day sales. Please, Missourian, you're better than that.

I have said this once, and I'll say it again. I have seen the human face of abortion on three occasions. All three of them found it a traumatic experience and hated every moment of it.

Anti-abortionists also take things to the nth degree. They act like late term abortions are:
1) The norm (they are not)
2) Are carried out in a care-free, "who gives a shit" manner (theyr'e not)
3) the doctors performing them are sitting there with a big smile on their face going "yippee!" (they're not)
4) That on the rare occasion when a mother, having not gotten an abortion in the first two trimesters, then wants to abort a perfectly healthy foetus near the end of the third, people should be looking into the mental state/well being of the mother as opposed to ostricising her because something has gone terribly wrong in her thought processes.

Until anti-abortionists get rid of the vitriolic rhetoric, and stop using extreme examples as the norm, most (but not all) will get treated with the ridicule they deserve.

They are abortion factories Doc.

I heard that the Republican controlled House is working to end Title X (ten) payments to Planned Parenthood, because of the profits they make from abortions...and it's astronomical.

Planned Parenthood 800 clinics preform 300,000 abortions per year...fully one quarter of the 1.2 million annual abortions in the US.



I'm not a fanatic...use condoms, use the pill, use RU486, use the morning after pill, but once a baby forms, once it's heart starts beating, once it's brain begins forming, it's too late for birth control. Period.

If the mother is going to die, I understand having an abortion...that's triage. Sometimes you have to make a decision between two tragic outcomes, it sucks but I understand.

Rape and incest...I understand.

Health of the mother...as long as it is not used as an excuse for abortion as birth control, I understand...but today, abortion providers continue to use "health of the mother" as a catch all excuse for abortion-on-demand, and that is why pro-lifers oppose it.

I can tell you not even ten percent of the 1.2 million abortions annually in the US are due to rape, incest, life or legitimate health concerns combined. The number of US live births is 4.1 million.

We are aborting 20 percent of the babies conceived!!!


That's not just a travesty, or a tragedy...that's a nightmare.


Here are some links to back up my numbers:

National News

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year — Infoplease.com