Abortion is NOT murder!

[TheReasoner]

Murder means:"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another"
Abortion may be premeditated, but it is not unlawful.

So, if you do believe abortion to be killing other human beings as worth of life as you and me (which I do) then call it 'infanticide'. It is a lot more accurate. While this may seem like semantics, I believe it is important to use the right words in the right context. And 'murder' is technically wrong no matter your ideological stance on the issue.

 

[Trashionista]

A fetus isn't an infant, therefore, infanticide really can't be applied as a term either.

 

[cwolf20]

logically. in order for it to currently be legal for an abortion to occur, it had to be illegal at one point. Therefore by your post, it was at one point murder. until a law changed it. since at one point it was murder... was it a sin to change the law to make it legal in the first place?

Murder means:"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another"
Abortion may be premeditated, but it is not unlawful.

 

[cwolf20]

the article is too long to paste and there are too many points. I'd rather not come under the plagiarism rules. however, unless I've been told wrong this is one of the sites a lot of people new to the pro-choice side are told to go to. It refers in several parts to all the times that abortion was illegal. since it's a pro-choice site, that should avoid any potential (slim but likely) chances of people thinking I'm posting propaganda or something. (gotta love some of the discussions on these forums)

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html

Tropical Wilds

 

[AaronK88]

That doesn't make it right, or not murder. Just because we legalize murder of criminals on death row, you are still murdering them, even though legally. Unless you are trying to tell me that it is something other than murder.

 

[TheReasoner]

That doesn't make it right, or not murder. Just because we legalize murder of criminals on death row, you are still murdering them, even though legally. Unless you are trying to tell me that it is something other than murder.

No. That' not accurate. The definition of murder means the killing has to be both premeditated and unlawful. Legalize the killing of caucasians, and it's no longer murder to kill caucasians. It's still wrong, but it's not murder.

 

[MaxP]

It may not decide if it's "right" or not, since the decision on what makes it "right" depends on situations and personal takes on ethics and morality... But the fact that it's legal certainly does mean it's not murder. In order for murder to take place, there has to be an unlawful killing. If it's not unlawful, then it's not murder.

So by saying morality depends entirely on situation, do you deny there is an objective morality?
Do you deny innocent beings have a right to life?
It also depends on the take on the definition of "unlawful"
Is it unlawful by God's laws? Yes.

We don't murder criminals on death row... We execute them. If their execution is legal, it's not a murder. One cannot legally murder somebody else. It's a contradiction.

What makes their murder lawful(and I believe the death penalty should only be applied in very few instances), is the fact they have forfeit their own right to life.
Different than abortion, where the victim is striped without any actions of his own.

If the "it" is execution, then yes... It is something other than murder. It's an execution. A penalty carried out for breaking the law after a person has been afforded due process in determining their guilt. They are not innocent, and their execution is not unlawful.

If the "it" is abortion, then yes... That is something other than murder too. It's a medical procedure where a pregnancy is terminated, where a fetus is removed from the uterus of a woman by her initiation, consent, and choice. There's no murder there because an abortion isn't illegal, and because the fetus is not a seperate legal entity recognized under the law, so one can't kill it.

Life begins at conception.
When the "fetus is removed in a medical procedure," it is murdered, an innocent human being is taken and murdered.
Whether it is recognized by the state law, there is a higher law to this universe.
If I make it legal to kill people, without reason, it is still murder, based on the higher natural law of the universe.

 

[MaxP]

I didn't say that morality depends on the situation. I said it depends on the person. What you find moral I might find highly immoral, and vice versa.

Nice way to completely dodge the question.
Regardless of what I, or you think, is there objectively wrong and right acts?

Really, nobody has a "right to life." It's one of those neat catchphrases of bumper-sticker philosophy that some folks are so keen on, but really, it's as asinine as claiming you have a "right to breathe" or a "right to blink." Nobody is entitled to be alive. To imply that by simply existing, you have a right to be alive, you kind of flout God's will. At any moment, you could die, and to be not alive isn't a violation of any right you have.

You are in grave error here. The basis of the wrongness of murder(hence the fifth commandment) is based in the wrongness of you taking away the life God has given to every man. You have a right to be alive not just by existing, but by being created by God. By denying that right, you flout God's will.

I'm pretty sure that I missed the passage where God outlined a law against abortion. The only thing I see that could remotely resemble a statement on abortion was Exodus 21:22, where if you harm a woman to miscarriage, you only pay restitution. I mean, have you read Luke? The angel asks her if she wants to do this great thing in being the Virgin Mother. Mary got a choice on if she wanted to be pregnant with Jesus. Here's guessing if God sees fit to send an angel to ask Mary if she wouldn't mind being pregnant, God extends that choice to others too.

That's right, every woman has a choice. To have sex or not to have sex when they know they can get pregnant.
A couple problems with abortion:
1) It demeans the nature of sex. Sex is there as a co-operation of God and the parents to create life. In times when the potential parents might not wish to have children, they can natural family plan. They must, however, always be open to life in the act of sexuality. It is sexuality's purpose. Abortion, then, turns the focus from the procreation of human life to pure pleasure. Sex is a sacred thing, demeaned by abortion.

2) It is murder(5th commandment, if you want a passage). God imparts upon every child an immortal soul. When do you think He decides to do this? Do you think he gives you a trial period in which you are free to say "O hey, lets not give birth." I don't think so.

Also, consider the early 1st century Church fathers pronounced abortion as the murder fo human beings.

First off, there's no such thing as a lawful murder. By definition, a murder is unlawful. If it's lawful, it's not a murder. The term "lawful murder" is an oxymoron. It's like saying "consensual rape" or "non-violent assault" or "purchased theft."

Granted, a slip.

Secondly, they (the criminals) didn't forfeit their own right to life... A judicial system made a determination that a penalty for their crime is death. The criminals didn't decide to be executed, somebody decided for them. Here's guessing if you ask them, most of the people on death row would very much not like to die, meaning that they didn't forfeit their own theoretical right to life.

Another grave error.
They do not have to say, "Hey, kill me!" to give up their right to life, and even if they did, that alone would not give up their right to life.
They give up their right to life by the virtue of their crime, and when the only feasible way to prevent them from killing(or committing other some such grave offense) again is to kill them. hence, in today's world there are very rare cases where the death penalty is necessary.

Different than abortion as execution involves a penalty as the result of a crime by a person, and abortion is a medical procedure involving a woman and a non-sentient fetus, and is an entirely consensual procedure as the woman isn't forced to be there. Kind of like how euthanizing a sick animal is entirely different than going to have you're appendix out.

Your appendix is not a person.

Which is your personal belief and opinion, which also means you won't exercise your right to choose to abort, which is fine. Being pro-choice means I support your right to not get an abortion.

Very well. I hope you also support my right to kill any child I might have when he/she becomes inconvenient.

Considering pregnancy doesn't even begin at conception, I don't think life starts at conception, making the above statement really kind of meaningless to me. Even if science were able to prove somehow that life begins at conception, it wouldn't really matter in the end to me as I'd still support a woman's right to get an abortion or not.

Even if life doesn't begin at conception(considering that line of debate will be fruitless), it is still grave, atrocious crime to destroy even that which will be a human being.

You would support a woman's "right" to extinguish life? Really?

Opinion noted. So don't get an abortion.

I won't. I can't.

Wonderful. That higher law has not stated abortion is murder, even though abortion existed quite openly back when Jesus was on earth.

Consider even the earliest Christians condemned abortion.(as I said above, and provided a link)

If you make it legal to kill people without reason, on the off chance that is a possibility as one person can't just randomly decide an illegal act is suddenly legal, it would still not be murder. You might think the action is the moral equivalent to murder, but it's not murder. Just like one cannot consent to be raped, one cannot be legally murdered.

The point I try to illustrate is the laws of the state matter little in the "lawfulness," since they change and flux.

 

[MaxP]

I didn't dodge the question. I said objective morality depends on what the person's individual beliefs are.

So the answer is no, there are no acts that are wrong regardless of belief?

So when you die, somebody is taking away your right to be alive? If you believe God is in control of life and death, you can't believe life is a right you're entitled to. It would mean that you believe when God takes you, he's either a murderer, or he's violating your personal right to be alive.

Again, wrong. God provides you that right to complete your purpose here on earth. It is directly up to Him to call you back, but your right to life means no one but Him can take life from you.

Which does a lot of good to women who are raped, who didn't choose to have sex,

One atrocious evil does not justify another.

or women on birth control, who choose to have sex and choose not to be pregnant. Or women who are pregnant and develop complications that are life threatening, or women who become pregnant with a non-viable embryo or fetus.

Again, the ends does not justify the meand. Killing and innocent being can NEVER be used to accomplish "good."

I think you're confusing consent to sex to consent to being pregnant, which is not the case. Just because I agree to have sex doesn't mean I agree to being pregnant.

If you agree to have sex you must agree to be open to God creating life through you. It is the purpose of the act. It's like me making waffles but not wanting to have waffles.

So you believe that the purpose of sex is, universally, to have children? So people who can't have children, such as myself, have no purpose in having sex, or the act of sex is pointless? Or people who are beyond fertile age? How do you reconcile the belief that sex is about procreation with things like The Song of Solomon, which is all about mutual pleasure in sex? Or the statements by God that man and wife are to be one, and are not to deny eachother the pleasures of the body?

You miss the point again. The main purpose of sex is life, not the only. If you have sex for pleasure or to bring you and your spouse closer, you must STILL be open to the main purpose of sex, life. It is the goal of sex.

And are you implying that by not maing sex about babies, turning sex into pleasure, one turns life into pleasure... Which is apparently bad... That one should leave sex open to babies, so that sex is not about pleasure, and life isn't about pleasure? Do you really think that babies being a punishment, or a barrier to pleasure, is a better thing to aspire to than taking pleasure in sex?

Babies are one of the biggest joys and pleasures in life, they are not a barrier. Life isn't about pleasure, life is about God. I could take pleasure in many, many things God bans. Life is focused on God. not that you cannot take pleasure in sex, but one must be open to life.

I've read the 5th Commandment, and it does not say abortion is murder.

It bans murder, which is what abortion is.

And if we go by Biblically when God imparts souls in people, it's when they take their first breath. I personally believe that the soul comes earlier than that, but if you want to use the Bible as proof that life starts at conception, Genesis 2:7 and Job 33:4 makes it pretty clear that life starts at first breath.

You need to get a Bible commentary. it says God breathed, as in imparted(not as in taking in air), life into them, not they breathed and they were alive. It doesn't answer any questions about when life begins.

Abortion after quickening, my dear. They thought abortion after the baby moved was sinful... They did not declare it murder, nor did they state that abortion before quickening was sinful. Keeping in mind when you can first feel movement, the church was far more liberal in how long one could take to get an abortion than our laws now are.

The early Christians are the first on record as having pronounced abortion to be the murder of human beings, for their public apologists, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Minutius Felix (Eschbach, "Disp. Phys.", Disp. iii), to refute the slander that a child was slain, and its flesh eaten, by the guests at the Agapae, appealed to their laws as forbidding all manner of murder, even that of children in the womb. The Fathers of the Church unanimously maintained the same doctrine. In the fourth century the Council of Eliberis decreed that Holy Communion should be refused all the rest of her life, even on her deathbed, to an adulteress who had procured the abortion of her child. The Sixth Ecumenical Council determined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers. In all these teachings and enactments no distinction is made between the earlier and the later stages of gestation.

I would provide the link, but I can't.

So believe one can void their supposed right to life by actions, even if they may desire to be alive, and because the will of others (as enforced by law) is that they may be killed. Which means you can't use the argument that abortion is bad because it doesn't consider the desire of the fetus. The act of existing inside of an unconsenting women, even if the non-sentinent, non-aware fetus may desire to stay, is voided because the will of another, as supported by the law, is that it should not be there.

But it is alive, and guilty of no wrongdoing, so it has a right to life.

Your very own argument supports abortion, regardless of what will is... That is, of course, making the vast assumption that a fetus, which is non-aware, non-sentinent, and lacks basics, like brain function, can make a determination about its state of being.

With the use of an electroencephalogram, or EEG, activity in the brain can be detected as early as six weeks gestational age ( 6. ). Whether brain activity begins at this time or merely becomes detectable at this time is uncertain; it is known that neural connections begin forming as soon as neurons begin forming, as early as 14 days gestation

Again, I'd provide the link, but I can't.

 

[Texas Lynn]

logically. in order for it to currently be legal for an abortion to occur, it had to be illegal at one point. Therefore by your post, it was at one point murder. until a law changed it. since at one point it was murder... was it a sin to change the law to make it legal in the first place?

No, this assertion is illogical. Eating carrots is legal and was never illegal.

Abortion was criminalized for only a short period, a little more than 100 years, and was always during that time a lesser crime than murder.

 

[Texas Lynn]

You would support a woman's "right" to extinguish life? Really?

Abortion is legal in the United States under the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments to the constitution. This is the best public policy. Criminalizing abortion does no good, and does much harm.

 

[archaeologist2]

in reading this thread as far as i could tell everyone one of you appealedto terrestrial government statutes to define what murder is. the problem with that is not every country is the same nor have they the same ideas of right and wrong as other nations.

not that at present there are any countries which have legalized murder but other areas of life are deemed wrong in one country when in another continent that same thing is considered right or okay.

todefine what murcer is one cannot look to the secular world or governments for as you know by this issue some people deem abortion murder, others do not. you have to look to God's definition of what murder is and when a human is a human.

a human is a human right from conception, it does not start a horse or a dog then miracuously change somewhere in the 2nd trimester to a human. it is always a human.

God's definition ofmurderis a lot different than man's andit would be wise to study up on that insteadof looking to the secular world for the answer. as abel's blood cried up to God after the first murder we can conclude that these children's blood also cry to Him.

now though we established the idea that we need to look to God to define murder we must then look to God on how to approach the subject and provide God's love and message to those who decide to perform or ave an abortion.

being judgmental and condemning is NOT the way to go.

 

[MaxP]

Abortion is legal in the United States under the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments to the constitution. This is the best public policy. Criminalizing abortion does no good, and does much harm.

Hm, 4th ammendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As I recall, no one searches anything.

5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Nothing even remotely to do with abortion. Unless you twist the words into some vague representation of abortion rights. A difficult task.


9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This, in fact, supports pro-life. Your right to "privacy" does not overrule another humans right to life.

14th ammendment:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I just have to say - which Constitution are you reading?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Hm, 4th ammendment:

As I recall, no one searches anything.

Tell it to Phill Kline and other unethical officials which attempted to cherry pick abortion clinic records on fishing expedetions.

5th amendment:

Nothing even remotely to do with abortion. Unless you twist the words into some vague representation of abortion rights. A difficult task.

Not at all. A woman has a right to control her own body and the government cannot stop her.

9th amendment:

This, in fact, supports pro-life. Your right to "privacy" does not overrule another humans right to life.

Since a fetus is in no sense at all "another human" the law provides no support whatsoever to the anti-abortion movement. The idea a fetus is a person is a work of fiction, unsupoorted by anything but emotionalism.

14th ammendment:

I just have to say - which Constitution are you reading?

Same one as Harry Blackmun.

 

[MaxP]

Tell it to Phill Kline and other unethical officials which attempted to cherry pick abortion clinic records on fishing expedetions.

It is immaterial as to abortion "rights."

Not at all. A woman has a right to control her own body and the government cannot stop her.

Yeah, um, that amendment says nothing remotely like that.

Since a fetus is in no sense at all "another human" the law provides no support whatsoever to the anti-abortion movement. The idea a fetus is a person is a work of fiction, unsupoorted by anything but emotionalism.

The crux of the issue. I can cite again that detectable brain function again.

With the use of an electroencephalogram, or EEG, activity in the brain can be detected as early as six weeks gestational age ( 6. ). Whether brain activity begins at this time or merely becomes detectable at this time is uncertain; it is known that neural connections begin forming as soon as neurons begin forming, as early as 14 days gestation

Also, our soul is created to be carried by our body; our body develops, but our soul is still there.

Same one as Harry Blackmun.

Same one that in no stretch of the imagination condoned or even allows killing babies.

 

[archaeologist2]

A woman has a right to control her own body and the government cannot stop her.

the Bible is very clear that once a woman has sex or marries, it is NOT her own body anymore. the woman has no right to do with 'her' body as she pleases, it doesn't solely belong to her. of course this applies to the man as well as his body is not solely his either.

this ideology of 'its a woman's body' is a secular teaching meant to destroy the reality of marriage and union between the sexes. it opens the door to promiscuity and sexual adventures that are sinful and lead humans to destruction.

Since a fetus is in no sense at all "another human" the law provides no support whatsoever to the anti-abortion movement. The idea a fetus is a person is a work of fiction, unsupoorted by anything but emotionalism

humans do NOT have the authority to declare what is or isn't human. such thinking above led the europeans and americans to categorize the african as non-human so they could justify their slave trade.

God determines what is or isn't human and no man is allowed to change that. just because the american governmant made some declaration does it meanthe status of the fetus changed to non-human. it is still a humanbeing, it is just in the developing stages in becoming able to live outside the womb.

God designed the womb to protect the developing human so it can have achance when it is born, but the above quoted thinking tries to defeat that protection by allowing women to think it is non-human and they can do as they want to it for such violations do not fall under man's laws.

unfortunately for those people, God's laws see no such limitation and it is God's laws one needs to worry more.

 

[Texas Lynn]

It is immaterial as to abortion "rights."



Yeah, um, that amendment says nothing remotely like that.



The crux of the issue. I can cite again that detectable brain function again.
Also, our soul is created to be carried by our body; our body develops, but our soul is still there.



Same one that in no stretch of the imagination condoned or even allows killing babies.

Since a fetus is not a baby, the above is just one irrelevancy after another.

 

[Texas Lynn]

the Bible is very clear that once a woman has sex or marries, it is NOT her own body anymore. the woman has no right to do with 'her' body as she pleases, it doesn't solely belong to her. of course this applies to the man as well as his body is not solely his either.

this ideology of 'its a woman's body' is a secular teaching meant to destroy the reality of marriage and union between the sexes. it opens the door to promiscuity and sexual adventures that are sinful and lead humans to destruction.



humans do NOT have the authority to declare what is or isn't human. such thinking above led the europeans and americans to categorize the african as non-human so they could justify their slave trade.

God determines what is or isn't human and no man is allowed to change that. just because the american governmant made some declaration does it meanthe status of the fetus changed to non-human. it is still a humanbeing, it is just in the developing stages in becoming able to live outside the womb.

God designed the womb to protect the developing human so it can have achance when it is born, but the above quoted thinking tries to defeat that protection by allowing women to think it is non-human and they can do as they want to it for such violations do not fall under man's laws.

unfortunately for those people, God's laws see no such limitation and it is God's laws one needs to worry more.

The Bible presents a sexist construct of marriage customs which accurately reflects the primitive culture from which it sprang. Thankfully, a woman is free today and attempts to control her through spiritual blackmain will meet massive resistence. assertions of power that is "God's" is not in any form the province of self-aggradizing humans.

A woman or girl growing up in a controlling religion which seeks to tell her her body is not hers will find ready allies in her attempts to escape such spirtual fascism. In any case, a woman's best option upon reaching majority age is to flee anyone attempting to impose illegetimate authority upon her by any means necessary if she has not done so already.

 

[MaxP]

Since a fetus is not a baby, the above is just one irrelevancy after another.

I'll pray for you.

 

[archaeologist2]

The Bible presents a sexist construct of marriage customs which accurately reflects the primitive culture from which it sprang

so you do not see the bible as the truth then and that man must make his own determination of what is true or false? whose standards would we use?

Putin's? Kim Jong-Il's? Bush's?or how about Idi Amin's? or Hitler's? if you reject the Bible you really have nothing to base one's life on. certainly not morality as morality changes with different people.

Just because the Bible's origins were from humble roots (speaking of the biblical writers not God) that does not mean the words are wrong, sexist, or of human construct.

Thankfully, a woman is free today and attempts to control her through spiritual blackmain will meet massive resistence. assertions of power that is "God's" is not in any form the province of self-aggradizing humans

this actually makes no sense whatsoever but i will address the first 5 words. women only think they are free but in reality are being deceived and lead to destruction. they think they are being 'liberated' but that is all deception and secular teaching. man was not made for the woman but the woman for the man, so where are you going to go? right from the beginning God instituted the order of things and try as you might you can't escape that reality.
(staff edit)

In any case, a woman's best option upon reaching majority age is to flee anyone attempting to impose illegetimate authority upon her by any means necessary if she has not done so already.

(staff edit) your opinion.