Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
EXACTLY!That doesn't make it murder.
Murder is, by definition, an ILLEGAL killing. Anywhere abortion is legal, it cannot by very definition, be murder.
You can get the law changed, so it IS illegal and then you can call it murder, but unless that is the case, it isn't.
I suggest that instead of taking this thread off track you simply post an OP of your own with the question.Okay, so if the original poster changed the title to "Abortion is obviously taking a life away from another human being" would he be more correct in his statement?
or would have been a serial killer or a thief or a lawyer.. which are pretty alike anywayAbortion is killing a young genetically unique person by use of a coat hanger or other such sophisticated object. That person would have otherwise grown into larger person who would have been born, maybe married, may be had chilldren, maybe had grand children but would have been aborted before having children. Such is death or life.
Well, you're changing the object of the sentence, "murder." The thrust of the OP was the consideration of abortion as murder. To substitute "taking a life away from another human being" for "murder" changes that very specific thrust. Autumnleaf obviously used "murder" because this is where he wanted the focus of everyone's answer to be: Look at abortion in terms of murder. To suggest that abortion be looked at differently is to take our consideration of it down a different track."I suggest that instead of taking this thread off track you simply post an OP of your own with the question."
-Washington
Why is it off-track?
No, it hasn't always had a specific moral definition. Even today it doesn't. Some people will call state executions murder, some will call killing in war murder, and some will call abortion murder. From a moral point of view, it's pretty meaningless - basically it means killing of a human being which the speaker doesn't approve of.Murder also has a specific MORAL definition, and has had for many centuries. It is not a purely legal term. If you wish to split hairs, you must look at every split-end.
Abortion is killing a young genetically unique person by use of a coat hanger or other such sophisticated object. That person would have otherwise grown into larger person who would have been born, maybe married, may be had chilldren, maybe had grand children but would have been aborted before having children. Such is death or life.
While I can't speak for Reverend DG, I would say that legally a "person" is any born citizen or corporation in the US. Ethically, there are many definitions of what a "person" is. Personally (*wink*), I feel that there needs to be some level of mental activity and intelligence present for something to be considered a "person". But, when it comes to the argument "if abortion should remain legal or not" I feel the legal definition of "person" is probably the most appropriate.Reverend DG, What is this "more to being a person" you refer to? Specificity would be appreciated there on both sides, I'm sure.
I disagree. I think that looking at the issue from a logical and ethical standpoint is best, leaving emotions aside. In my experience, bringing emotions into this debate only clouds the issue.Also, removing emotion from the equation is very dangerous. While, yes, it shouldn't be the only tool used in determining legislation, it shouldn't be ignored for the purpose of pragmatism. Otherwise, it can turn into the female genocide of China.
Well, yes, the potential is there for any sperm or ovum to become a born human, under the right conditions. But I believe the Pro-Life argument is that all of the conditions are already present by the time an abortion would be considered, thus there is greater potential for an unborn human to become a born human.Some of pro-life argumentation is based on potential. The potential of the fetus becoming a "person." Then, wouldn't wasting sperm or using protection in intercourse be considered a type of preventative abortion? There could have been a life, but it was thwarted by a rubber?
Unborn humans are, without a doubt, human. They have human DNA, after all. Anyone who believes that an unborn human is not human is mistaken.I think it strange how people can view a fetus as a non-human. A pregnant mother after just finding out she's having a baby and then losing it would be devastated, right? Am I wrong? Don't people refer to an unborn fetus as a baby anyway or do they just say, "How's the fetus coming along?" Maybe I'm wrong on this one. Perhaps when a mother decides she'd rather have an abortion the fetus is a fetus and if she decides it's a baby it's a baby.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?