It should be Murder?

[ScottA]

Learn to live with being wrong.

And the Freudian Slip of the Year, goes to: SteveB28!

You have been saying that in spite of whether something turns out to be right or wrong, the consensus is "right" regardless...i.e. learn to live with being wrong. (RIGHT!)

I have been saying that, in spite of what the consensus is, "right" is right, and people are often wrong. ... Which does mean that your advice of learning to live with being wrong, fits...but not because I will, but because people definitely are often wrong...but NEVER, I will never learn to live with being wrong (with the consensus)...never!

 

[SteveB28]

a fetus is a young baby .

Wrong again. You may think this, but it is an opinion unsupported in law and in common acceptance.

 

[SteveB28]

And the Freudian Slip of the Year, goes to: SteveB28!

You have been saying that in spite of whether something turns out to be right or wrong, the consensus is "right" regardless...i.e. learn to live with being wrong. (RIGHT!)

I have been saying that, in spite of what the consensus is, "right" is right, and people are often wrong. ... Which does mean that your advice of learning to live with being wrong, fits...but not because I will, but because people definitely are often wrong...but NEVER, I will never learn to live with being wrong (with the consensus)...never!

Are you people all part of a club or something? One in which entry is dependent upon the ability to produce febrile ramblings?

You mention Freud. Is psychoanalysis prominent in your thoughts for a reason?

 

[jenny1972]

Wrong again. You may think this, but it is an opinion unsupported in law and in common acceptance.

so what do you think a human fetus is then a young kitten ?

 

[JackRT]

so what do you think a human fetus is then a young kitten ?

A human fetus is a potential human person.

 

[jenny1972]

A human fetus is a potential human person.

yes a human fetus has the potential to be classified as a person but of course they are already classified as people by those who consider all human beings as people . so some do and some do not classify a young human as a person .

 

[JackRT]

yes a human fetus has the potential to be classified as a person but of course they are already classified as people by those who consider all human beings as people . so some do and some do not classify a young human as a person .

It is obvious that both the female egg and the male sperm have a form of life but no one would call either a person. When they unite to form a zygote it certainly is alive. There is a potential person there and a great many people would claim that it actually is a person. Let us grant for a moment that the zygote is a person and let us call that person Mary. I choose a female name since all embryos are female until about the sixth or seventh week.

Now, we all know that a zygote develops into an embryo through the process of cell division. Every now and again the first cell division does not produce a two celled embryo but rather a second zygote --- identical twins. Did Mary suddenly become two persons? Was Mary two persons to begin with? Was Mary even a person to begin with? Let us set those questions aside for the moment and grant that the second zygote is also a person whom we shall call Margaret. It is entirely possible that one or both of these zygotes could divide again to result in triplets, quadruplets, quintuplets etc. The same question applies as to whether one person can became two, three or more persons. When does a person become a person?

These questions might be difficult enough but now it becomes even more complex. Sometimes two eggs are fertilized to form non-identical twins. Once again, let us call them Mary and Margaret. Rarely the two zygotes merge together again to form a two celled embryo. This is called a chimera. Who is this new embryo? Is it Mary or is it Margaret? This new embryo, this chimera, let us call it Mary, develops to term and is born. There is now no question at all that Mary is indeed a person. But here is the odd thing, some of the organs of Mary carry her genes but other organs carry the genes of her twin sister Margaret. So Margaret continues to exist within Mary or perhaps it is Mary within Margaret. Do we have two persons within a single body?

These very serious questions of person-hood arise only if we assume that the soul is infused at conception and that the brand new zygote is fully a person. Is there a more reasonable understanding? I believe there is. Personally I believe that the developing fetus becomes a person only when it is able to survive outside the womb. Sentience occurs at about the same point in the pregnancy very late in the second trimester. For this reason I am against abortion beyond the twentieth week except in very rare extreme circumstances.. Otherwise I believe that abortion should be legal, it should be safe, it should be available and it should be the woman’s informed choice but most important of all --- it should be rare. In conclusion, we should always keep in mind that there is no more powerful abortifacient in the world than poverty.

 

[SteveB28]

yes a human fetus has the potential to be classified as a person but of course they are already classified as people by those who consider all human beings as people . so some do and some do not classify a young human as a person .

And you are a member of the minority that thinks this way.

Good for you. Most people don't. Most people never have. This is why there has always been strong public support for the right of a woman to make the requisite decisions about her reproduction.

And you don't like this. We understand. You want to be able to tell all women what they should and should not do.

It isn't going to happen. As I said to Scott, learn to live with the fact that you are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of this issue.

 

[JackRT]

And you are a member of the minority that thinks this way.

Good for you. Most people don't. Most people never have. This is why there has always been strong public support for the right of a woman to make the requisite decisions about her reproduction.

And you don't like this. We understand. You want to be able to tell all women what they should and should not do.

It isn't going to happen. As I said to Scott, learn to live with the fact that you are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of this issue.

"The law does not provide that the act of abortion pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation..."--St Augustine

"The intellective soul i.e., true person is created by God at the completion of man's coming into being." -- St Thomas Aquinas

"Many modern philosophers and theologians return to St. Thomas' view."--Fr Joseph F. Donceel, S.J.

"To admit that the human fetus receives the intellectual soul from the moment of its conception, when matter is in no way ready for it, sounds to me like a philosophical absurdity. It is as absurd as to call a fertilized ovum a baby." --Jacques Maritain

"In the rabbinic tradition...abortion remains a non-capital crime at worst."--Rabbi David Feldman

The Scriptures are silent in defining when one becomes a person.

 

[RDKirk]

I see many here who would wish to deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy, by declaring that it would be an act of murder.

And yet I also see those same people running away from this question:

How would such a law be enforced?

You realize that abortion actually was illegal up to 1972, and that law enforcement and courts did deal with it.

So all you actually have to do is read a bit of history.

 

[jenny1972]

And you are a member of the minority that thinks this way.

Good for you. Most people don't. Most people never have. This is why there has always been strong public support for the right of a woman to make the requisite decisions about her reproduction.

And you don't like this. We understand. You want to be able to tell all women what they should and should not do.

It isn't going to happen. As I said to Scott, learn to live with the fact that you are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of this issue.

history typical does not look back kindly on those who dehumanize and kill others and there are as many people who are pro-life as there are who are pro-choice in the US http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx

 

[SteveB28]

"The law does not provide that the act of abortion pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation..."--St Augustine

"The intellective soul i.e., true person is created by God at the completion of man's coming into being." -- St Thomas Aquinas

"Many modern philosophers and theologians return to St. Thomas' view."--Fr Joseph F. Donceel, S.J.

"To admit that the human fetus receives the intellectual soul from the moment of its conception, when matter is in no way ready for it, sounds to me like a philosophical absurdity. It is as absurd as to call a fertilized ovum a baby." --Jacques Maritain

"In the rabbinic tradition...abortion remains a non-capital crime at worst."--Rabbi David Feldman

The Scriptures are silent in defining when one becomes a person.

Yes, well said. It appears that this may be an issue wherein 'too much knowledge is a dangerous thing' may be something of a factor.

In times past, people took their lead from the church's pronouncements about 'quickening', so much of the debate about first trimester abortions would have been non-existent in those times. Now we understand a little more about the developmental process, this gives the protestors the impetus to cry that a fertilised egg is a 'child'.

 

[SteveB28]

history typical does not look back kindly on those who dehumanize and kill others and there are as many people who are pro-life as there are who are pro-choice in the US http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx

You mention 'history' then fail to observe the history evident in your own graphs! Whilst it has been closer in the last five years, HISTORY would show that the public has always clearly supported the right of a woman to make her own decisions about her reproduction.

 

[SteveB28]

You realize that abortion actually was illegal up to 1972, and that law enforcement and courts did deal with it.

So all you actually have to do is read a bit of history.

Two points.

This discussion centred around the concept of declaring abortion to be murder, not just outlawing it.

Your statement does not deal with the reality that that illegality flew in the face of public opinion. Which would be a leading reason for those laws to have been overturned.

 

[Albion]

I see many here who would wish to deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy, by declaring that it would be an act of murder.

And yet I also see those same people running away from this question:

How would such a law be enforced?

1. It is murder, by any logical standard.
2. How or whether to punish it is an entirely separate matter.

 

[SteveB28]

1. It is murder, by any logical standard.
2. How or whether to punish it is an entirely separate matter.

1. In your mind only. The courts and public opinion disagree with your 'logic'.
2. Unless a crime has been committed, discussion of punishment becomes irrelevant.

 

[Albion]

You mention 'history' then fail to observe the history evident in your own graphs! Whilst it has been closer in the last five years, HISTORY would show that the public has always clearly supported the right of a woman to make her own decisions about her reproduction.

Not entirely true, but you are referring to earlier centuries in which people didn't know that the unborn child was anything but a clump of flesh, completely incapable feeling, etc., like a tumor. WE NOW KNOW BETTER, just as we no longer allow workers to paint radium on watch faces with brushes moistened by their own lips.

 

[Albion]

1. In your mind only. The courts and public opinion disagree with your 'logic'.

You are speaking here only of what the status of the act is in law. The question, however, was whether or not it should be considered murder.

2. Unless a crime has been committed, discussion of punishment becomes irrelevant.

That's irrelevant to the point #2 as I made it.

 

[SteveB28]

Not entirely true, but you are referring to earlier centuries in which people didn't know that the unborn child was anything but a clump of flesh, completely incapable feeling, etc., like a tumor. WE NOW KNOW BETTER, just as we no longer allow workers to paint radium on watch faces with brushes moistened by their own lips.

No, I am referring to ANY AND ALL times in the past. The general public has always supported the right of a woman to make decisions about her reproduction. Laws that may have come and gone restricting this right have been imposed for reasons other than public opinion.

 

[SteveB28]

You are speaking here only of what the status of the act is in law. The question, however, was whether or not it should be considered murder.


That's irrelevant to the point #2 as I made it.

And the majority of the public have always said "no", that it is not murder.