Abortions: Should Women be Allowed to Choose?

[Noomi]

Uh-oh! Uh-oh!!! Uh-oh Noomi! Do I see someone running for the hills once the idiocy of their position is exposed using their own lack of logic? Are you ready to be a big girl and admit you were wrong on this issue?

I shall wait here eagerly awaiting your response running from your own position

Rape is rape whether a condom is used or not. The law is clear on that, isn't it?
What the law doesn't say, is that abortion is murder, does it?

Score one for me.

It is? That's funny - I've yet to see anything mentioned about a condom in the actual law.

Furthermore, murder is murder whether done by Planned Parenthood or not. The law is clear on that, isn't it?

Abortion is not murder. Get that through your thick skull.

 

[P@triot]

This thread is not about rape.

Now provide me some evidence to show that abortion is murder, and also show me a case where a woman has had an abortion at Planned Parenthood and ended up charged with murder.

I shall wait here.

By the way, show me a case where George W. Bush was ever charged with any crime for his actions as President? By your "logic", I guess that means you support the Iraq war and 100% of the decisions made by GWB while in office.

I mean, after all, of the government sanctions it, it can't possibly be wrong in Noomi's mind

This is what's called getting "owned" Noomi. I've taken your own words and showed you just how absurd and asinine your positions on these issues are. Are you ready to give up?

George Bush doesn't make the law regarding abortions, which is what this thread is about. Stay on topic, troll.

I've used YOUR words - so that would make you the "troll"!

 

[talksalot]

The primary problem that nutters have with this issue is that they consider a fetus to be a human being.

Get that fixed.....and you can turn your attention to preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place as your best method to reduce the number of abortions.

You were an embryo, and a fetus who in nine short months developed into a poor example of a human being.

How does de-humanizing the unborn help prevent unwanted pregnancy? The Nazi's de-humanized Jews and other "unwanted" people before they slaughtered them; abortion on demand is the same only "better".....so easy, so clean, no screams and the tiny remains are so easily disposed of that 1.2 million are "gotten rid of" each year with an efficiency that Hitler would admire.

Until society stops hiding behind slogans; like "reproductive rights" and acknowledges that abortion ends a human life, people will never see the importance of preventing unwanted pregnancy.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

The red states have been putting up barriers to abortion for years. Some of the red states don't have a single doctor who will perform abortions, forcing women to leave the state to get an abortion.

There is no state in the union which lacks an abortion provider. Every state has at least one, not including outpatient clinics. Why do you continue to make comments which are demonstrably wrong?

Texas has made it so difficult for women to get a legal abortion, that women are now turning up at Texas hospitals in septic shock from botched Mexican abortions.

You would think something like that would be major news, wouldn't it? Of course some women will seek out an illegal abortion when a legal abortion is unavailable. Who has disputed this?

Ya think that MAYBE that might have bearing on the low rates of abortion in red states, and the higher rates in neighbouring blue states?

Nope. "Red" states, in general, have a higher percentage of their in-state abortions obtained by out-of-state woman than do "blue" states ([URL="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm]Table 2[/URL]). Simplified, the abortion rate in a "red" state is influenced more by out-of-state abortions than is the abortion rate in a "blue" state. And now you know!

With that being said, I'm going to wade (pun!) into this little debate about Christianity you have going on here and just point out that you are being extremely dishonest. Your entire argument seems to center along the lines of "Jesus said not to judge so live and let live". Please show me where this argument is espoused by Jesus, because I must have missed it. The problem you're having is you're using Matthew 7:1 as a cover to rationalize abortion. That is, since Jesus said not to judge, Christians cannot comment on a woman's decision to have an abortion. But why stop at abortion? Let's apply that logic elsewhere.

Someone wants to rob a bank? Well, you can't judge them for doing so. Jesus said not to.
They want to sacrifice their two year old to the great Dark Lord? Again, not your place to judge. Jesus said not to.
Someone wants to commit a few rapes? Hey, that's terrible, but you can't say anything. Jesus would be disappointed in you.
And so on and so forth.

Of course you wouldn't agree with any the above. You will apply an objective standard of morality when dealing with the above issues, but when speaking of abortion, you apply a subjective standard, whereas the above activities are morally unacceptable regardless of what the person engages in them thinks, but an abortion morally acceptable so long as the woman having it thinks it's permissible. So why the hell should anyone take any of the nonsense you've typed out seriously? You're not being consistent in the slightest. You've created two different sets of rules depending on whether or not you like the action in question. When you say "Christians shouldn't judge", what you really mean to type out is "Christians shouldn't say anything about something I don't have a problem with", which is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty of the highest magnitude.

 

[Cowman]

You should have aborted this thread, OP.

"Should women have the right to choose? Of course... they have the right to choose from my acceptable choices given to her."

You have the right to choose for her.

 

[P@triot]

Rape is rape whether a condom is used or not. The law is clear on that, isn't it?
What the law doesn't say, is that abortion is murder, does it?

Score one for me.

It is? That's funny - I've yet to see anything mentioned about a condom in the actual law.

Furthermore, murder is murder whether done by Planned Parenthood or not. The law is clear on that, isn't it?

Abortion is not murder. Get that through your thick skull.

Abortion is murder. You confuse the terms "murder" and "legal". Just because a radical Supreme Court unconstitutionally legalized it, doesn't mean it's no longer murder. It's just "legalized" (and I use that term loosely) murder.

 

[Cowman]

It is? That's funny - I've yet to see anything mentioned about a condom in the actual law.

Furthermore, murder is murder whether done by Planned Parenthood or not. The law is clear on that, isn't it?

Abortion is not murder. Get that through your thick skull.

Abortion is murder. You confuse the terms "murder" and "legal". Just because a radical Supreme Court unconstitutionally legalized it, doesn't mean it's no longer murder. It's just "legalized" (and I use that term loosely) murder.

Murder is a legal definition, you fucking idiot. Murder... manslaughter, self defense, etc... they're all just legal definitions.

So who is confusing what?

Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person"

Please tell me how the mother and doctor are acting with malice?

 

[JoeB131]

[

So a Supreme Court stacked with liberal whacko's violated the U.S. Constitution and "legalized" the murder of babies at Planned Parenthood? :

Poodle, you are completely ignorant. Here's how the Supreme Court voted on Roe.

Majority (Roe)

Chief Justice Warren Burger - Appointed by Nixon
Justice William O. Douglas - Appointed by FDR
Justice William J. Brennan - Appointed by Eisenhower
Justice Potter Stewart - Appointed by Eisenhower
Justice Thurgood Marshall - Appointed by LBJ
Justice Harry Blackmun (wrote the opinion)* - Appointed by Nixon
Justice Lewis Powell - Appointed by Nixon

Dissenting (Wade)

Justice Byron White - Appointed by FDR
Justice William Rehnquist - Appointed by Nixon

Yup- of the seven justices who vote for a woman's right to choose, FIVE of them were appoined by Republican presidents.

And of the 8 Republicans appointed to the court since Roe, four of them - Steven, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter have consistently voted to uphold Roe.

So Roe was written by a Republican, passed by Repubicans, and upheld by Republicans for decades!

And this is where you Rubes don't get it. The people who run the GOP don't want to overturn Roe. They just want people like you and Ally to be soooooo angry about it that you can't see your own economic interests.

 

[Dragonlady]

Someone wants to rob a bank? Well, you can't judge them for doing so. Jesus said not to.
They want to sacrifice their two year old to the great Dark Lord? Again, not your place to judge. Jesus said not to.
Someone wants to commit a few rapes? Hey, that's terrible, but you can't say anything. Jesus would be disappointed in you.
And so on and so forth.

Your arguments fail the logic test. All of the things you cite above are in violation of living, sentient beings. All violate the Commandments (Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not kill, and Do unto others . . . ), so they in no way compare to a woman dealing with the biological functions of her body.

No matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no prohibition in the Bible against abortion, and when a woman is to be executed, there is no concern for any unborn child she might be carrying. In fact, the Bible says the sentence is to be carried out regardless of whether she is pregnant.

 

[koshergrl]

Abortion is not murder. Get that through your thick skull.

Abortion is murder. You confuse the terms "murder" and "legal". Just because a radical Supreme Court unconstitutionally legalized it, doesn't mean it's no longer murder. It's just "legalized" (and I use that term loosely) murder.

Murder is a legal definition, you fucking idiot. Murder... manslaughter, self defense, etc... they're all just legal definitions.

So who is confusing what?

Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person"

Please tell me how the mother and doctor are acting with malice?

Murder can take place regardless of whether or not the law declares that particular type of murder is legal.

Only then it's usually classified as a war crime or a crime against humanity...and the murderers ultimately may be tried for acts they undertook when the law told them it was okay. See, if the law is bad, and the people who enforce the law and act on it, the people can still be held accountable.

 

[koshergrl]

[

So a Supreme Court stacked with liberal whacko's violated the U.S. Constitution and "legalized" the murder of babies at Planned Parenthood? :

Poodle, you are completely ignorant. Here's how the Supreme Court voted on Roe.

Majority (Roe)

Chief Justice Warren Burger - Appointed by Nixon
Justice William O. Douglas - Appointed by FDR
Justice William J. Brennan - Appointed by Eisenhower
Justice Potter Stewart - Appointed by Eisenhower
Justice Thurgood Marshall - Appointed by LBJ
Justice Harry Blackmun (wrote the opinion)* - Appointed by Nixon
Justice Lewis Powell - Appointed by Nixon

Dissenting (Wade)

Justice Byron White - Appointed by FDR
Justice William Rehnquist - Appointed by Nixon

Yup- of the seven justices who vote for a woman's right to choose, FIVE of them were appoined by Republican presidents.

And of the 8 Republicans appointed to the court since Roe, four of them - Steven, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter have consistently voted to uphold Roe.

So Roe was written by a Republican, passed by Repubicans, and upheld by Republicans for decades!

And this is where you Rubes don't get it. The people who run the GOP don't want to overturn Roe. They just want people like you and Ally to be soooooo angry about it that you can't see your own economic interests.

Still lying.

Do you believe dishonesty is the hallmark of intellect?

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Your arguments fail the logic test. All of the things you cite above are in violation of living, sentient beings. All violate the Commandments (Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not kill, and Do unto others . . . ), so they in no way compare to a woman dealing with the biological functions of her body.

It's funny that you would mention logic, since your arguments contain none.

Find me where any of the commandments are qualified based on sentience (I'm going to ignore your living quip, not simply because it's scientifically illiterate, but because it's absurd to think that you can kill something which isn't alive to begin with). The fact is that you can't. You are performing what's commonly knows as eisegesis. The Sixth Commandment says "Thou shalt not kill". It doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill sentient beings". Now since you seemingly think it's okay to to kill "non-sentient" beings and that the Bible doesn't prohibit the killing of "non-sentient" beings, then you agree that there is nothing morally impermissable about killing someone in their sleep? After all, individuals who are asleep show no sentience. If you say no, that just shows the intellectual dishonesty of the position you're espousing. This is what happens when you use terms you don't understand.

I'm not so sure how you're attempting to differentiate between "killing an individual" and "killing an individual", but neither are any different. Even you know this, which is why you go to great lengths to rationalize your position.

No matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no prohibition in the Bible against abortion, and when a woman is to be executed, there is no concern for any unborn child she might be carrying. In fact, the Bible says the sentence is to be carried out regardless of whether she is pregnant.

I'm pretty sure the Bible also says you're supposed to be subservient to a man. I'm going to guess that you don't care.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Someone wants to rob a bank? Well, you can't judge them for doing so. Jesus said not to.
They want to sacrifice their two year old to the great Dark Lord? Again, not your place to judge. Jesus said not to.
Someone wants to commit a few rapes? Hey, that's terrible, but you can't say anything. Jesus would be disappointed in you.
And so on and so forth.

Your arguments fail the logic test. All of the things you cite above are in violation of living, sentient beings. All violate the Commandments (Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not kill, and Do unto others . . . ), so they in no way compare to a woman dealing with the biological functions of her body.

No matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no prohibition in the Bible against abortion, and when a woman is to be executed, there is no concern for any unborn child she might be carrying. In fact, the Bible says the sentence is to be carried out regardless of whether she is pregnant.

Abortion breaks #6, abortion ends/terminates/destroys/kills a living human being.

What part of a woman's body is no longer intact after she has an abortion?

 

[Cowman]

Abortion is murder. You confuse the terms "murder" and "legal". Just because a radical Supreme Court unconstitutionally legalized it, doesn't mean it's no longer murder. It's just "legalized" (and I use that term loosely) murder.

Murder is a legal definition, you fucking idiot. Murder... manslaughter, self defense, etc... they're all just legal definitions.

So who is confusing what?

Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person"

Please tell me how the mother and doctor are acting with malice?

Murder can take place regardless of whether or not the law declares that particular type of murder is legal.

Only then it's usually classified as a war crime or a crime against humanity...and the murderers ultimately may be tried for acts they undertook when the law told them it was okay. See, if the law is bad, and the people who enforce the law and act on it, the people can still be held accountable.

Except that's not true. Murder is strictly a legal definition. If somebody had acted in a manner equating to murder, it's murder. Someone can have committed homicide without it being murder. Someone can have committed manslaughter without it being murder.

This isn't about what you FEEL it is or should be, it's about what it is. Murder didn't exist before the concept of it was invented in common law. Previous to that, it all depended on what the culture thought the act to be. Many acts of homicide were PERFECTLY lawful and justified in the past.

A little reading for you from wikipedia.

William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs

when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.[3]
The elements of common law murder are:

Unlawful
killing
of a human
by another human
with malice aforethought.[4]
The Unlawful – This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as an execution, justified self-defense, or the killing of enemy soldiers during a war.[5]

Killing – At common law life ended with cardiopulmonary arrest[4] – the total and permanent cessation of blood circulation and respiration.[4] With advances in medical technology courts have adopted irreversible cessation of all brain function as marking the end of life.[4]

of a human – This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the birth canal and took its first breath.[4]

by another human – at early common law suicide was considered murder.[4] The requirement that the person killed be someone other than the perpetrator excluded suicide from the definition of murder.

with malice aforethought – originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning – a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:

Intent to kill,
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

Just look at so many Christian assholes when it comes to the Ten Commandments. "Thou Shall Not Kill" is one of the commandments... but apparently SOME kind of killing is perfectly justified in their eyes.

 

[Cowman]

Someone wants to rob a bank? Well, you can't judge them for doing so. Jesus said not to.
They want to sacrifice their two year old to the great Dark Lord? Again, not your place to judge. Jesus said not to.
Someone wants to commit a few rapes? Hey, that's terrible, but you can't say anything. Jesus would be disappointed in you.
And so on and so forth.

Your arguments fail the logic test. All of the things you cite above are in violation of living, sentient beings. All violate the Commandments (Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not kill, and Do unto others . . . ), so they in no way compare to a woman dealing with the biological functions of her body.

No matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no prohibition in the Bible against abortion, and when a woman is to be executed, there is no concern for any unborn child she might be carrying. In fact, the Bible says the sentence is to be carried out regardless of whether she is pregnant.

Abortion breaks #6, abortion ends/terminates/destroys/kills a living human being.

What part of a woman's body is no longer intact after she has an abortion?

Except people in the name of god, even in the Bible, have slain countless people. Men, women, children... the unborn...

 

[koshergrl]

Murder is a legal definition, you fucking idiot. Murder... manslaughter, self defense, etc... they're all just legal definitions.

So who is confusing what?

Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person"

Please tell me how the mother and doctor are acting with malice?

Murder can take place regardless of whether or not the law declares that particular type of murder is legal.

Only then it's usually classified as a war crime or a crime against humanity...and the murderers ultimately may be tried for acts they undertook when the law told them it was okay. See, if the law is bad, and the people who enforce the law and act on it, the people can still be held accountable.

Except that's not true. Murder is strictly a legal definition. If somebody had acted in a manner equating to murder, it's murder. Someone can have committed homicide without it being murder. Someone can have committed manslaughter without it being murder.

This isn't about what you FEEL it is or should be, it's about what it is. Murder didn't exist before the concept of it was invented in common law. Previous to that, it all depended on what the culture thought the act to be. Many acts of homicide were PERFECTLY lawful and justified in the past.

A little reading for you from wikipedia.

William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs

when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.[3]
The elements of common law murder are:

Unlawful
killing
of a human
by another human
with malice aforethought.[4]
The Unlawful – This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as an execution, justified self-defense, or the killing of enemy soldiers during a war.[5]

Killing – At common law life ended with cardiopulmonary arrest[4] – the total and permanent cessation of blood circulation and respiration.[4] With advances in medical technology courts have adopted irreversible cessation of all brain function as marking the end of life.[4]

of a human – This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the birth canal and took its first breath.[4]

by another human – at early common law suicide was considered murder.[4] The requirement that the person killed be someone other than the perpetrator excluded suicide from the definition of murder.

with malice aforethought – originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning – a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:

Intent to kill,
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

Just look at so many Christian assholes when it comes to the Ten Commandments. "Thou Shall Not Kill" is one of the commandments... but apparently SOME kind of killing is perfectly justified in their eyes.

Thou shalt not MURDER. Not kill.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is? That's funny - I've yet to see anything mentioned about a condom in the actual law.

Furthermore, murder is murder whether done by Planned Parenthood or not. The law is clear on that, isn't it?

Abortion is not murder. Get that through your thick skull.

Abortion is murder. You confuse the terms "murder" and "legal". Just because a radical Supreme Court unconstitutionally legalized it, doesn't mean it's no longer murder. It's just "legalized" (and I use that term loosely) murder.

Actually, the right to privacy has always existed, the Roe Court simply invalidated laws which violated that right.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Your arguments fail the logic test. All of the things you cite above are in violation of living, sentient beings. All violate the Commandments (Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not kill, and Do unto others . . . ), so they in no way compare to a woman dealing with the biological functions of her body.

No matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no prohibition in the Bible against abortion, and when a woman is to be executed, there is no concern for any unborn child she might be carrying. In fact, the Bible says the sentence is to be carried out regardless of whether she is pregnant.

Abortion breaks #6, abortion ends/terminates/destroys/kills a living human being.

What part of a woman's body is no longer intact after she has an abortion?

Except people in the name of god, even in the Bible, have slain countless people. Men, women, children... the unborn...

What is your point?

You also failed to answer my question.

 

[Cowman]

Murder can take place regardless of whether or not the law declares that particular type of murder is legal.

Only then it's usually classified as a war crime or a crime against humanity...and the murderers ultimately may be tried for acts they undertook when the law told them it was okay. See, if the law is bad, and the people who enforce the law and act on it, the people can still be held accountable.

Except that's not true. Murder is strictly a legal definition. If somebody had acted in a manner equating to murder, it's murder. Someone can have committed homicide without it being murder. Someone can have committed manslaughter without it being murder.

This isn't about what you FEEL it is or should be, it's about what it is. Murder didn't exist before the concept of it was invented in common law. Previous to that, it all depended on what the culture thought the act to be. Many acts of homicide were PERFECTLY lawful and justified in the past.

A little reading for you from wikipedia.

William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs

when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.[3]
The elements of common law murder are:

Unlawful
killing
of a human
by another human
with malice aforethought.[4]
The Unlawful – This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as an execution, justified self-defense, or the killing of enemy soldiers during a war.[5]

Killing – At common law life ended with cardiopulmonary arrest[4] – the total and permanent cessation of blood circulation and respiration.[4] With advances in medical technology courts have adopted irreversible cessation of all brain function as marking the end of life.[4]

of a human – This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the birth canal and took its first breath.[4]

by another human – at early common law suicide was considered murder.[4] The requirement that the person killed be someone other than the perpetrator excluded suicide from the definition of murder.

with malice aforethought – originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning – a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:

Intent to kill,
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

Just look at so many Christian assholes when it comes to the Ten Commandments. "Thou Shall Not Kill" is one of the commandments... but apparently SOME kind of killing is perfectly justified in their eyes.

Thou shalt not MURDER. Not kill.

Ohhh look at you. It's THOU SHALL NOT KILL.

People much later determined that it was "Thou shall not murder". YOUR WHOLE VIEW of the bible is just interpretations of man interpreting what earlier man wrote.

It's still written as "Thou Shall Not Kill".

But all of that is fucking irrelevant though, because WE DO NOT LIVE IN A FUCKING THEOCRACY WHERE YOU RELIGIONS CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS CAN PUSH YOU SHIT ON US.

Murder is a legal definition. And abortion does not fulfill it.

 

[Cowman]

Abortion breaks #6, abortion ends/terminates/destroys/kills a living human being.

What part of a woman's body is no longer intact after she has an abortion?

Except people in the name of god, even in the Bible, have slain countless people. Men, women, children... the unborn...

What is your point?

You also failed to answer my question.

I wasn't aware you were posing the question at me, so I fail to see how I failed to answer it.

I don't understand the question anyway.

My POINT was that throughout history man has defined what it means to murder someone. Stoning people wasn't murder. Killing people in the name of god wasn't murder. Sacrificing your son wasn't murder.

"Murder" is dependent entirely on how a society views differing acts of homicide.

In our society, abortion is NOT murder. It is a lawful act, provided it is done in accordance with the law.