If abortion is murder...

[Ravi]

And if you read my post you would see that we have already classified abortion as murder but only when committed by someone who is not the mother. Its legal to kill your child if you're the mother but if you are anybody else it's murder.

One more try. Read my question.

 

[AllieBaba]

He doesn't say such Allie and Christ was not one to really mince his words?

Abortion was very uncommon during Christ's era because society deemed those with MORE children as being a good thing and most families needed as many workers they could get to work their own farms or businesses...the more children the merrier for the most part....he would have no reason to be speaking to the crowd regarding aborted fetuses....?

So I do not se how Christ was talking about the unborn as innocense, he was speaking of the Children born, who had not yet been corrupted by society imho....by adulthood, they no longer had this innocense...right?

care

Christ didn't mince words, but he made many, many allusions. He alluded to the OT, he alluded to scripture, and I believe when he's talking of innocents the unborn are included. I think he was speaking directly to the future.

 

[Ravi]

Christ didn't mince words, but he made many, many allusions. He alluded to the OT, he alluded to scripture, and I believe when he's talking of innocents the unborn are included. I think he was speaking directly to the future.

Jesus just asked me to tell you to leave him out of this thread and answer the question posed.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's murder because it's human life. It's not illegal because of Roe v. Wade. Previous to that it wasn't illegal because it wasn't an issue...those who needed or wanted abortions got them however they got them. It wasn't until population started to soar and more and more women were getting abortions (and dying from them, along with their babies) that it was made illegal.

 

[Ravi]

It's murder because it's human life. It's not illegal because of Roe v. Wade. Previous to that it wasn't illegal because it wasn't an issue...those who needed or wanted abortions got them however they got them. It wasn't until population started to soar and more and more women were getting abortions (and dying from them, along with their babies) that it was made illegal.

I didn't ask why it was murder, I asked if it is murder why do we need a law to forbid it since murder is already illegal.

 

[Care4all]

I didn't ask why it was murder, I asked if it is murder why do we need a law to forbid it since murder is already illegal.

it is a good question, and obviously the answer is, that killing an unborn child has never been thought of as murder, in the early months, before quickening....

it did eventually become a felony for both the woman aborting after quickening, and a felony for her doctor performing such in Common Law, which we followed in American early years....i am uncertain if this ''felony'' was attached to laws on murder or laws made separately that were specific to the act?

 

[AllieBaba]

I didn't ask why it was murder, I asked if it is murder why do we need a law to forbid it since murder is already illegal.

Ok, and slowly for the Rav:

"It's not illegal because of Roe v. Wade. Previous to that it wasn't illegal because it wasn't an issue...those who needed or wanted abortions got them however they got them. It wasn't until population started to soar and more and more women were getting abortions (and dying from them, along with their babies) that it was made illegal."


"It's not illegal because"

"It's not illegal because"

"It's not illegal because"

Otay?

It wasn't considered an issue because it was a woman's issue and so long as it was hidden from the public there was no need to address it. But in the 1800s it became a very big ugly issue, and it had to be addressed.

 

[Ravi]

it is a good question, and obviously the answer is, that killing an unborn child has never been thought of as murder, in the early months, before quickening....

it did eventually become a felony for both the woman aborting after quickening, and a felony for her doctor performing such in Common Law, which we followed in American early years....i am uncertain if this ''felony'' was attached to laws on murder or laws made separately that were specific to the act?

So in a way, making laws to forbid abortion is an admission that it isn't murder.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, it's an oversight which resulted from the fact that nobody ever thought we'd actually need a law to protect the unborn, or that abortion would become an industry in this country.

 

[Mr. President]

One more try. Read my question.

I've read your post you are trying to get to second base without touching first

 

[Ravi]

I've read your post you are trying to get to second base without touching first

Whatever you say.

 

[Care4all]

No, it's an oversight which resulted from the fact that nobody ever thought we'd actually need a law to protect the unborn, or that abortion would become an industry in this country.

i don't think so, abortion just wasn't against any law, untill quickening...that's just how it was early on in our laws....only a few states did not follow common law on this and made their own statutes governing abortion early in our history....

there was not a law that said it was legal, there just was no law that said it was illegal, until after quickening....from all that i have read...

 

[AllieBaba]

There is no law on the books prior to the law outlawing abortion that said anything about the death of a fetus being "murder" only after quickening.

 

[Mr. President]

Your title says IF ABORTION IS MURDER we have to first come to a consensus that abortion is murder to go any further. Right now our government has conflicting views about whether or not abortion is murder. That is why you can not get a direct answer.

 

[Ravi]

Your title says IF ABORTION IS MURDER we have to first come to a consensus that abortion is murder to go any further. Right now our government has conflicting views about whether or not abortion is murder. That is why you can not get a direct answer.

I'm sorry the question was too difficult for you.

 

[plt42]

I am pro-choice. Abortion would not be my choice but I respect the right of another to make their own.

I'm against any constitutional amendment on the subject of abortion or marriage. The federal government has no business in the personal lives of citizens. The Federal Government should deal only with those things set forth in The Constitution as it is. "It ain't broke; don't fix it."

By law, an unborn child cannot inherit. In that instance, the law does not consider the unborn to be a "person". That being the case, how could abortion be considered by law as "murder"? How can the murder of a pregnant person (i.e.; Lacy Peterson) be consider a dual murder?

Without getting into religion or the bible... staying within the context of law... how can this be justified?

Just curious!

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol.

And that's the hideous conundrum the pro-choice crowd is faced with. Sometimes it's a baby, sometimes it's just a fetus. It all depends on the whim of the mother.

 

[Ravi]

It all depends on the whim of the mother.

This is true and will be the subject of my next thread, when I get around to it...I just wondered if anyone could answer the question I posed in this one, first.

 

[Diuretic]

So in a way, making laws to forbid abortion is an admission that it isn't murder.

You're quite right. Murder is one of the oldest offences. In English common law it was understood to mean the unlawful killing by one human being of another human being intentionally ("with malice aforethought"). Since a foetus isn't a human being then it couldn't be the subject of murder at common law. Statutory formulations of murder are required to make it a criminal offence to intentionally kill a feotus.

 

[Ravi]

You're quite right. Murder is one of the oldest offences. In English common law it was understood to mean the unlawful killing by one human being of another human being intentionally ("with malice aforethought"). Since a foetus isn't a human being then it couldn't be the subject of murder at common law. Statutory formulations of murder are required to make it a criminal offence to intentionally kill a feotus.

Thanks, that was my thinking, too, but I wondered if I was correct or not...since I'm often wrong.