Abortion

[TheBear]

Yes he should. Babies are people too. You wouldn't want to kill a baby outside the mother's womb. Yet it's okay to kill a baby inside the mother's womb? That's crazy.

"The nation that kills the baby inside the mother's womb has lost it's soul"-Mother Teresa

The word "baby" conjures up the image of a fully formed human. The word "people" conjures up the image of fully formed humans.

Of course, it wouldn't go over as well if you stated that zygotes are people too. So, I understand why you use terms designed to maximize emotional reactions.

 

[HumbleServant94]

The word "baby" conjures up the image of a fully formed human. The word "people" conjures up the image of fully formed humans.

Of course, it wouldn't go over as well if you stated that zygotes are people too. So, I understand why you use terms designed to maximize emotional reactions.

I'm using these terms because:

It's a baby so call it a baby.

I don't know the terms used in medical science.

 

[WatersMoon110]

The law states that the person that kills a pregnant woman is responsible for two lives. And it doesn't matter if it's before twelve weeks. It's still a human baby. It's still a life not just some thing you can pop like a pimple.

I still suggest that you read through the information on Wikipedia about abortion methods, you don't seem to be fully aware of how and when different methods are used.

Like I said, I disagree with fetal homicide laws. Like you, I see a contradiction between allowing legal abortion until viability, but trying a man who kills a woman pregnant with a non-viable unborn human is tried for taking two lives.

And pimples, I'd like to point out are both human and alive (well, part of a living being - many of their parts are or were alive).

Edit: and "baby" being a non-medical term can be used to apply to both newly born and unborn humans. Though I prefer to use the non-emotionally-charged phrase "unborn human" myself. Emotions get in the way of good debate, I see no reason to include them at all.

 

[TheBear]

I don't know the terms used in medical science.

Let me help you out. It's better to get the terminology defined, than to toss around terms loosely.

Here's the sequence.

Zygote -> Blastocyst -> Embryo -> Fetus

It's called "baby" only at the fetus stage forward.


I hope this helps.

 

[HumbleServant94]

Let me help you out. It's better to get the terminology defined, than to toss around inaccurate terms.

Here's the sequence.

Zygote -> Blastocyst -> Embryo -> Fetus

It's called "baby" only at the fetus stage forward.


I hope this helps.

Although this helps me, it's still a baby whether in the zygote stage or the blastocyst stage. They're just stages, but it's still a human being.

 

[TheBear]

Although this helps me, it's still a baby whether in the zygote stage or the blastocyst stage.

You can claim anything you want. It's not called a baby until the fetus stage forward. Look it up. And if we're not going by medical terms, then what are we going by, your own personal bias? There has to be some standard by which we all go by, regardless of personal prejudices.

They're just stages, but it's still a human being.

You're shifting goal posts. What's in question is your use of the term "baby".

 

[Washington]

Read some books with a Christian perspective that told some mothers' stories.

Sorry, but a few anecdotal stories don't qualify as sufficient evidence for leaping to the conclusion you do: "usually."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's just that it doesn't make sense. Killing the baby in the mother's womb by killing the mother counts as murdering the baby and the mother. But with abortion it's not considered murder. What is up with that?

...it makes sense.

If the mother and father were planning on keeping the baby, and somebody kills it, they've infringed upon someone else's rights and plans...thus, committing a crime.

If the mother and father took proper birth control precautions, and by some fluke, still got pregnant, there's no crime in making the responsible decision if you're not ready to be a parent (financially or otherwise).

It would also show that they did their research to realize that adoption isn't a viable competitor to abortion in the interest of the well being of the potential child and society... regardless of the bogus statistics that churches release.

 

[No Swansong]

...it makes sense.

If the mother and father were planning on keeping the baby, and somebody kills it, they've infringed upon someone else's rights and plans...thus, committing a crime.

If the mother and father took proper birth control precautions, and by some fluke, still got pregnant, there's no crime in making the responsible decision if you're not ready to be a parent (financially or otherwise).

It would also show that they did their research to realize that adoption isn't a viable competitor to abortion in the interest of the well being of the potential child and society... regardless of the bogus statistics that churches release.

The logical problem with your response is that when one is charged with causing the death of a fetus, they are not charged with a crime against the parents but against the fetus.

 

[No Swansong]

Well technically they are charged wth a violation against the state. But the definition of murder would indicate that this equates to a crime against the fetus not the parents.

 

[Washington]

it makes sense.

If the mother and father were planning on keeping the baby, and somebody kills it, they've infringed upon someone else's rights and plans...thus, committing a crime.

So murder hangs not on the act itself, but whether or not it's an infringement of the rights of someone else. The notion that, "I, the mother, have the sole right to decide whether or not what you did qualifies as a capital crime" goes against all legal philosophy. No one person is ever given the ability to decide the nature of a capital offense on a case by case basis: In this case what you did was murder (the mother wished otherwise), but in this other case what you did was not murder, (the same mother agreed to what you did).

This is not how our judicial system is meant to operate---its' legal definitions being decided on a case by case basis and at the determination of a particular citizen. "Doing X this time amounts to robbery if I say it does." "Doing Y this time amounts to extortion if I say it does." "Doing Z this time amounts to murder if I say it does."

 

[Zone]

Duplicate

 

[Zone]

Abortion(s) is very regrettable & it's designed to kill, steal, & destroy, there is far too many reasons why Christians & non-Christians should not kill their kid(s), etc &.... likewise, there is far too many reasons why Christians & non-Christians should be obedient to His word(s), etc & here is just a few....​

Reason # 1

• God desires to take you places that's beyond this dimension & teach you things beyond this dimension, as He has done for me.

Reason # 2

• God desires to work with you in laying-up treasures in Heaven, obtaining crowns, being a blessing, as He has done for me.

Reason # 3

• God desires to work with you in bringing billions of people into His kingdom, sit you into His throne, as He has done for me.

As a Christian (& a extremist), one of the many things that I've discovered during my many years of studying His word(s) is...., God do not have love, God is love & that everything that He does is (naturally) motivated via His love, now contrary to what you've been told, have seen &, or believe there are Christians & non-Christians who do not believe that is true & there's many reasons why they do not believe & here is just a few....


Reason # 1

• They do not understand, or have forgotten the dominion of God, the fact that within (d[sup]3[/sup]) the third dimension (where He is seated upon His throne) time is traveling & passing at a rate of 2,150 times faster than time is traveling & passing on Earth within (d[sup]1[/sup]) this dimension.

Reason # 2

• The tragic experiences that they've experienced, or is experiencing which they're blaming on God.

Reason # 3

• They desire to push Jesus Christ aside & take God's place in their lives.

God love the human species more than the word itself (which He has demonstrated, is demonstrating & will continue to demonstrate) & as a loving God..., He desires to warn mankind, that the world (as it is now) is coming to an end, the Rapture, His 21 judgments, the Antichrist, Satan, the battle of Armageddon, etc is coming.

Therefore, I beseech all my Christian brothers & sisters to dedicate, or rededicate the rest of their lives to serving Him with a fervent passion & to all the non-Christians I say.... accept God (i.e., Jesus Christ) as Lord & savior while there is still time.

All of this I say in the name of Jesus Christ,

Amen.

 

[wanderingone]

Alright, there's a law stating that if you kill a pregnant woman, you are responsible for two lives: the baby and the mother. But when you do an abortion it's not considered murder. What is up with that? That is such a blatant contradiction. It doesn't make any sense. What are your thoughts?

Does it make sense? I don't know can you cite the law for me? I believe in general the laws do not apply when someone is only a few weeks along in their pregnancy. As far as I know these laws are not nationwide in the US, but each state has their own laws and they differ, and not all states have them.

If the law provides for a murder charge on a non viable fetus I would say it's not a reasonable law and it would definitely be in contradiction to legal abortion allowed at the same point in pregnancy.

 

[No Swansong]

Does it make sense? I don't know can you cite the law for me? I believe in general the laws do not apply when someone is only a few weeks along in their pregnancy. As far as I know these laws are not nationwide in the US, but each state has their own laws and they differ, and not all states have them.

If the law provides for a murder charge on a non viable fetus I would say it's not a reasonable law and it would definitely be in contradiction to legal abortion allowed at the same point in pregnancy.

The law in Ohio speaks specifically of "causing miscarriage". (Scientifically outdated as it may be) Indeed non-viable human life is included. (at least in that State)

Is there a State that doesn't have a similar law?

 

[wanderingone]

The law in Ohio speaks specifically of "causing miscarriage". (Scientifically outdated as it may be) Indeed non-viable human life is included. (at least in that State)

Is there a State that doesn't have a similar law?

I don't know, I'm asking the OP for some examples of the law. Causing a miscarriage is not the same as murder. If I'm pregnant and am assaulted to the degree that a miscarriage has been caused as a result I don't know that it would be considered a "murder" charge, it's something that has been done to me.

 

[pantless rationalist]

What about framing the laws as an infringement on personal property? For instance, it's not illegal to destroy your own property, but if someone does so without permission from the owner they could be taken to court. I don't know much about the current law, but it sounds like it does offer an inconsistent definition of personhood.

 

[No Swansong]

I don't know, I'm asking the OP for some examples of the law. Causing a miscarriage is not the same as murder. If I'm pregnant and am assaulted to the degree that a miscarriage has been caused as a result I don't know that it would be considered a "murder" charge, it's something that has been done to me.

I didn't communicate my point well I apologize for that. In the State of Ohio, at least as recently as 4 years ago, an act that caused a miscarriage was part of the definition of murder. In other words, if I punched you in the stomach and that punch caused you to miscarry (I personally think the term 'spontaneously abort' would be a better choice) I could be charged with battery upon your person, and the State could consider a charge of murder of the unborn child. I do know that a few have been charged and at least a couple convicted under this law. I believe in each case it was a matter of causing the death of the fetus while commiting a felony. I fully admit however it has been a while since I studied the issue and not only could my memory be faulty but the law could have changed since then.

 

[Washington]

Does it make sense? I don't know can you cite the law for me? I believe in general the laws do not apply when someone is only a few weeks along in their pregnancy. As far as I know these laws are not nationwide in the US, but each state has their own laws and they differ, and not all states have them.

If the law provides for a murder charge on a non viable fetus I would say it's not a reasonable law and it would definitely be in contradiction to legal abortion allowed at the same point in pregnancy.

Brief recap of each state law HERE

 

[TeddyKGB]

In other words, if I punched you in the stomach and that punch caused you to miscarry (I personally think the term 'spontaneously abort' would be a better choice)

It isn't. A miscarriage caused by trauma is non-spontaneous by definition.