Does abortion really equal murder?

[Illuminatus]

I find it funny that you used "unlawful" as if we need a reason for it to be murder. When does murder become "lawful"? When abortion is committed it is premeditated malice because the intention is to stop a life from growing.

It's the same level of maliciousness present when I pull weeds out of a garden. Murder involves killing a human being. A fetus is not a human being.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

It's the same level of maliciousness present when I pull weeds out of a garden. Murder involves killing a human being. A fetus is not a human being.

It is a human being, it is just not in the form of you and me. We both went through our "fetus" stage and we both had to go through that stage to develop all that we need to survive living here. When a baby is born after 40 weeks of being in a mother's womb, rest assure, that baby had to go through the stages in order to look like it does now. At what point does a "fetus" becomes a human being? When it takes it's first breathe of fresh air, but the baby wouldn't be able to breathe, if it did not develop it's lungs and any organ that is involved in breathing. Rest assured, what a pregnant woman is carrying in her body is a human being, not "will be" a human being, the baby just has not developed all his/her parts.

 

[Maren]

It is a human being, it is just not in the form of you and me. We both went through our "fetus" stage and we both had to go through that stage to develop all that we need to survive living here. When a baby is born after 40 weeks of being in a mother's womb, rest assure, that baby had to go through the stages in order to look like it does now. At what point does a "fetus" becomes a human being? When it takes it's first breathe of fresh air, but the baby wouldn't be able to breathe, if it did not develop it's lungs and any organ that is involved in breathing. Rest assured, what a pregnant woman is carrying in her body is a human being, not "will be" a human being, the baby just has not developed all his/her parts.

But by that logic, every egg in your ovaries is human. Each has unique DNA (even though it only has half of the double helix) and if given what it needs to develop will grow up to be just like you and I. What you said applies, "The baby just has not developed all his/her parts". So by your interpretation we could claim that each time you go through menses you are killing a child.

Another question, if you have a miscarriage in the first few weeks, will you bury the "baby"? That we don't bury this fetuses shows rather clearly that we do not consider them "human", despite the fact that they are homo sapiens. The same is true for a fetus that is miscarried (naturally aborted) at 5 months. Yet, once that baby is born, even it if only lives for one minute, then we typically bury the baby.

 

[The Gregorian]

It's the same level of maliciousness present when I pull weeds out of a garden. Murder involves killing a human being. A fetus is not a human being.

If it's not a human being when girls kill it, it's no more of a human when other people kill it. So... say a pregnant woman bumps into me... if I feel threatened, I can defend myself by punching her right in the belly... It was self-defense, so I can't get in trouble for hitting her... and if it results in the death of her baby, oh well.

Right?

Or is it a human when someone else kills it, but just a weed when you kill it?

 

[Illuminatus]

Another question, if you have a miscarriage in the first few weeks, will you bury the "baby"?

Good point. Something like 40 to 50% of fertilized eggs don't implant, and are lost. By daydreamergurl15's definition, half of the human population died before they were even born.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

But by that logic, every egg in your ovaries is human. Each has unique DNA (even though it only has half of the double helix) and if given what it needs to develop will grow up to be just like you and I. What you said applies, "The baby just has not developed all his/her parts". So by your interpretation we could claim that each time you go through menses you are killing a child.

Another question, if you have a miscarriage in the first few weeks, will you bury the "baby"? That we don't bury this fetuses shows rather clearly that we do not consider them "human", despite the fact that they are homo sapiens. The same is true for a fetus that is miscarried (naturally aborted) at 5 months. Yet, once that baby is born, even it if only lives for one minute, then we typically bury the baby.

I don't understand your line of reasoning. An egg, in order for it to "turn human" sperm is needed. If the egg never gets fertilized rest a sure a child will not come 40 weeks later. The egg might have a unique DNA, but that's because it was created to be fertilized by the sperm, which gives it the double helix and well...nature takes its course. So, you cannot interpret the fact that you are menstruating means you are killing a child because what is needed to create a human life never happened (or doesn't happen until you actually have sex... oh, you know what I mean).

People take actions for different reasons. If a person never knew they were pregnant and they had a miscarriage (which they probably didn't know) I cannot conclude that they would bury the child. Just because someone does not "bury a fetus" does not tell us whether it is a human or not, it shows what the person think of the fetus. If they do not consider it human, then they will probably treat it as waste, if someone does consider it human, then they will or will not bury them. Either action does not clearly state that "fetus" is or is not human, it just shows the state of mind of that person. But the difference between a natural miscarriage and abortion is this: one involved the body not being able to support a child and the body kills the child, the other involves intention, an outside source decided that the child should not live. And I cannot tell the body what to do, that's a natural course that God has given it. The body does what it was programmed to do. But the intentions of humans deciding that someone should not live, is what scary to me.

 

[selfinflikted]

I find it funny that you used "unlawful" as if we need a reason for it to be murder. When does murder become "lawful"?

It doesn't. That would be a contradiction of terms.

When abortion is committed it is premeditated malice because the intention is to stop a life from growing.

Malice is more or less wishing suffering on someone. To stop a life from growing is not (although it can be) wishing suffering. Besides, a clump of cells cannot "suffer".

I absolutely believe that abortion is murder, for when it is committed, interesting how the child (some people call it embryo, fetus, a thing) no longer develop.

You can believe abortion is murder 'till the cows come home, but that doesn't make it so. Further, a fetus is not a child - it is a fetus.

Should they be prosecuted?

No, as it is not unlawful.

Alas, here is the funny part, because our country tells women (or doctors, whomever committed the abortion) that it is okay, I don't think they should be punished but if it is overturned, then starting from the time it was overturned and continuing forward then those who commit this murder should be punished, in my opinion.

Until abortion becomes unlawful, the point is moot. It isn't against the law, therefore no punishment is imposed.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

You can believe abortion is murder 'till the cows come home, but that doesn't make it so. Further, a fetus is not a child - it is a fetus.

You can believe abortion is not murder 'til the cows come home, but that doesn't make it so. Further a fetus is a child, for it does not become a child, it is.

But I believe, the original poster, asked for our beliefs and that is mine. And the conversation with me and you, is over. Respond if you will, but I won't.

 

[selfinflikted]

You can believe abortion is not murder 'til the cows come home, but that doesn't make it so. Further a fetus is a child, for it does not become a child, it is.

But I believe, the original poster, asked for our beliefs and that is mine. And the conversation with me and you, is over. Respond if you will, but I won't.

/shrug

Makes no difference to me, though I wonder why you got all up-in-the-air all of a sudden?

 

[Illuminatus]

/shrug

Makes no difference to me, though I wonder why you got all up-in-the-air all of a sudden?

Ran out of arguments, most likely. Considering a fetus a human being is a hard position to defend.

 

[Larry D. McCarty]

GOD SAID ABORTION IS WRONG FACT!
THOU SHALT NOT KILL>>>EXODUS 20:13

Isaiah 49:15
Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.

Now what part of these words you dont understand. God made it real clear in His words...We all need to live by the word's of God without any questions!!

 

[Feminition]

GOD SAID ABORTION IS WRONG FACT!
THOU SHALT NOT KILL>>>EXODUS 20:13

Isaiah 49:15
Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.

Now what part of these words you dont understand. God made it real clear in His words...We all need to live by the word's of God without any questions!!

Oh, the poor mother, as if she does not wish to have a child from a rapist, she would be condemned to the deepest parts of Dante's Inferno, perhaps even for the betrayers- pure ice. Surely that's compassionate. Nice deity, there. And the rapist would be given a slap on the wrist but then let go because he tried to convince her to keep the baby. Absolutely lovely.

 

[Eleveness]

The choice to have an abortion should not be up to the man - it's not his body. But you are correct - there is a disparity in existence. However, there should be a legal procedure in place for the father of the fetus to refuse responsibility, (and therefore not be financially responsible for the child), within a certain timeframe that allows the mother to then opt to abort.

Yes! I absolutely agree with this entire paragraph.

The reason why a woman is free to abort, and why the man (usually) doesn't have a say in the process, is because it's her body. She, and she alone, has the right to decide what takes place inside her body. She is the only one who owns the blood upon which the fetus is dependent. She, and she alone, has the right to decide who benefits from the blood in her bloodstream. She is free to deprive the fetus of her blood, if she wants to.

(Note that this argument is still valid even if we assume that the fetus is a human being with all the rights everyone else has. Even in this case, the fetus still doesn't have the right to forcibly take nutrients from the mother's bloodstream, if she doesn't want it to. I'm surprised that pro-choicers don't use this argument more often, since it's impervious to the usual claims that a fetus is a human being.)

I also agree that the father should not be held financially responsible if he doesn't want to be. It's entirely possible that he only wanted to have sex for the purpose of expressing his love to his partner; he never intended to produce a child. In this case, I certainly agree that he should not be held accountable for the child's welfare (though I also agree that in this case, the father has no right to "see" the child, e.g. he has no visitation rights).

 

[Eleveness]

God made it real clear in His words...We all need to live by the word's of God without any questions!!

You realize that what you just wrote has been used to justify a great number of atrocities, including the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, right?

Is it too much to ask you to exercise a bit of reason--and even discretion--before carrying out what you believe to be God's will?

 

[Maren]

I don't understand your line of reasoning. An egg, in order for it to "turn human" sperm is needed. If the egg never gets fertilized rest a sure a child will not come 40 weeks later. The egg might have a unique DNA, but that's because it was created to be fertilized by the sperm, which gives it the double helix and well...nature takes its course. So, you cannot interpret the fact that you are menstruating means you are killing a child because what is needed to create a human life never happened (or doesn't happen until you actually have sex... oh, you know what I mean).

But that is just it, you are promoting an arbitrary time to claim that a fetus becomes "human". Your eggs are all human, just as human as a fetus, the only difference is that they are at an earlier stage of development.

People take actions for different reasons. If a person never knew they were pregnant and they had a miscarriage (which they probably didn't know) I cannot conclude that they would bury the child. Just because someone does not "bury a fetus" does not tell us whether it is a human or not, it shows what the person think of the fetus. If they do not consider it human, then they will probably treat it as waste, if someone does consider it human, then they will or will not bury them. Either action does not clearly state that "fetus" is or is not human, it just shows the state of mind of that person. But the difference between a natural miscarriage and abortion is this: one involved the body not being able to support a child and the body kills the child, the other involves intention, an outside source decided that the child should not live. And I cannot tell the body what to do, that's a natural course that God has given it. The body does what it was programmed to do. But the intentions of humans deciding that someone should not live, is what scary to me. The body does what it was programmed to do.

But you are the one adding the caveat about the woman not knowing she is pregnant. In fact, it seems not to matter -- fetuses are not buried.

Another question for you, if there is a medical risk to the mother (possible she will die) do you still think it is murder to kill a fetus?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

But that is just it, you are promoting an arbitrary time to claim that a fetus becomes "human". Your eggs are all human, just as human as a fetus, the only difference is that they are at an earlier stage of development.

I am not promoting an arbitrary time to claim that a fetus becomes "human". When we consider a child to be a "fetus" in it's stage of developing then at a certain point, we then have to establish a time line when it becomes human. If a I say a child at a stage of development is not a human, it's a thing, embryo, or fetus, then I must have some time line of when it becomes human. You see what I mean. By promoting that it is a fetus, it makes an arbitrary time to claim that a fetus becomes human. But I'm not promoting that it is a fetus, I'm claiming that it is a human already in the fetus stage. I'm sorry about the wording, I hope I'm explaining my position to you.

And about my position on the eggs, it needs a sperm in order for it to produce a child. If it is never fertilized, then rest assure, it will never create a human (and the creation of life is what I am talking about). I guess I am not understanding if you mean a fertilized egg during menstruation or us women just ovulating during menstruation (and the egg not being fertilized)?

But you are the one adding the caveat about the woman not knowing she is pregnant. In fact, it seems not to matter -- fetuses are not buried.

No, if a woman has a miscarriage within weeks, most likely, she doesn't know she's pregnant. And that's why I used it. It usually takes about a month where it shows up that she is pregnant, so if she has a miscarriage within weeks, she usually won't know. That is why I said it is hard for me to conclude that she would bury her fetus. I didn't mean, that was the only reason why she wouldn't bury her "fetus". That was just the first thing that popped into my mind when reading your post. But either way, if she buried her fetus or not, it does not give a clear definition of whether that child is human.

Another question for you, if there is a medical risk to the mother (possible she will die) do you still think it is murder to kill a fetus?

I think it's murder to kill a fetus under any situation. The question is, can that person live with themselves knowing that their child had to die for them to live (I do not want to imagine a mother, waiting for her child and then that child having to die so they might live. I can imagine it being painful no matter what the situation is). And personally, if it was me, I would tell the doctors, if at all possible, save us both, but they cannot then save the child.

 

[cantata]

EXACTLY why it's so important. Rapists know how embarrassing it is for the victim. If the first victim doesn't want to press charges, they see how easy it is, and just get away with it, and are more likely to do it again because there's no consequence for their actions. Yes, it's difficult, but it HAS to be done. A friend of mine, just last week was raped. The guy's done it before, but he humiliated the other person so much they wouldn't press charges either. I encouraged my friend to press charges, but she refused... the guy's still free, and who knows how many people he's violated simply because the women don't want to deal with it. So the next person he rapes is PARTIALLY my friend's fault... she had every chance to stop him, but she didn't. Just like when she was raped, it was partially the fault of the prior victim who COULD have stopped it, but didn't because she was embarrassed. Yes, the world's tough some time, but people have responsibilities... even women.

It's not about embarrassment. Embarrassment and shame are different.

But in any case, yes, women should report rape, but my main point is that your posts continue to trivialise the experience of rape and you should show a bit more sympathy for women who have been raped and find it difficult to report.

Men are even worse at reporting rape, by the way.

Oh no.... having to remember the situation in order to save others from experiencing it... poor baby. If it's something you wouldn't go through a little extra pain in order to prevent... it's not rape. If you won't so much as tell your story to have the rapist punished so he can't do it to someone else, and will likely have to experience it himself, in jail... then what happened wasn't rape.

That doesn't even make any sense. How does whether or not someone report a rape make a difference to whether or not it was, in fact, a rape? Rape is in the rapist's head as much as the victim's.

Just the opposite. I have an undeniable urge to protect them. But when people claim to have been raped... but when you offer to help them, they don't want any help, you can't imagine how frustrating that is. And then to see that sort of person walk around knowing he can take whatever he wants with impunity because no one would dare report him...

I can imagine. I have been in a situation where a friend had been sexually assaulted, and I was in a position to attempt to persuade her to get help. It was frustrating, but it was also deeply sad. She was horribly ashamed, afraid of what her parents might think, and terrified of the man who attacked her. She wanted it to go away. It wasn't some guy in a dark alley, either; it was someone she knew and had previously liked. Her eventual decision to press charges was incredibly brave. I would have been very sad if she hadn't, but I would not have been surprised or blamed her for it. It extended the trauma for her considerably.

How is it punishing women? If you're willing to say "I was raped, kill my child" ... but not "I was raped, make the rapist pay" ... that's a gross double-standard, is it not?

No. The two things have little to do with one another.

It's too embarrassing to have someone examine your genitals in order to stop a rapist, but are OK with someone shoving tools up there to chop up and vacuum out a living person in there in order for you to not have to deal with it?

Yes, for many women, that is precisely the situation.

So you'll kill your own child to pretend it didn't happen, but you won't inform the police to try to make it not happen again?

Do you really not see how disgusting that is?

It's sad. But it is not surprising. You need to try to have some sympathy.

... so when a woman kills her child because she doesn't want to be a mother, it's simply her choice because the fetus is just a parasite anyway. She can freely kill the child without the father's permission... or even telling the father at all.

But when the father decides he doesn't want to be a father and kills the child... the child instantly becomes a human and it's manslaughter.

Or if some random person's pushing their way through a crowd and accidentally knocks the woman over, causing miscarriage... he can be charged with manslaughter because he's not the mother.... But when the mother kills the same thing, it's just a tapeworm.

... Either it's a tapeworm or a human.... regardless of who kills it. If a girl decides she isn't ready to be a mom, and is free to kill it because it's just a tapeworm, then the boy should be able to make the same choice... we live in an equal society after all.

This is such an easy one. I'm really tired of explaining it to people. Here's how it is: the world would be a frightening place if it were legal to kill other people's wanted foetuses. (Happily) pregnant women would live in fear. Therefore it has to be illegal to kill someone else's foetus without their consent. That's why it counts as more than just assault. The legal terminology is not ideal, but the law against killing wanted foetuses exists as it is for the psychological benefit of mothers, not foetuses. It has nothing to do with whether or not a foetus is a human being. It simply recognises the fact that the loss of a wanted foetus is a traumatic experience for a woman and that therefore people who cause involuntary miscarriage should be dealt with more severely than those who merely assault.

 

[selfinflikted]

GOD SAID ABORTION IS WRONG FACT!
THOU SHALT NOT KILL>>>EXODUS 20:13

Isaiah 49:15
Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.

Now what part of these words you dont understand. God made it real clear in His words...We all need to live by the word's of God without any questions!!

Yet, it's ok when god commits mass murder? The flood, the passover? Those were ok then. Gotcha.

I am not promoting an arbitrary time to claim that a fetus becomes "human".

Actually, that's exactly what you did.

When we consider a child to be a "fetus" in it's stage of developing then at a certain point, we then have to establish a time line when it becomes human.

No one has said a fetus wasn't human. You've confused your terms.

If a I say a child at a stage of development is not a human, it's a thing, embryo, or fetus, then I must have some time line of when it becomes human.

Again, you're misusing terms. A fetus, at any stage is "human". I don't think you will find someone who is willing to disagree with that.

You see what I mean. By promoting that it is a fetus, it makes an arbitrary time to claim that a fetus becomes human. But I'm not promoting that it is a fetus, I'm claiming that it is a human already in the fetus stage. I'm sorry about the wording, I hope I'm explaining my position to you.

The fuss is over when a fetus becomes a person. We can all agree that it is human.

And about my position on the eggs, it needs a sperm in order for it to produce a child. If it is never fertilized, then rest assure, it will never create a human (and the creation of life is what I am talking about).

"rest assured"

Besides, an unfertilized egg is just as "human" as a fertilised one. It is, however, not a human being the same as a fetus is not.

I think it's murder to kill a fetus under any situation.

You can believe anything you want. I can believe that a purple and green leprechaun just scampered across my desk, but that doesn't make it a reality.

The question is, can that person live with themselves knowing that their child had to die for them to live (I do not want to imagine a mother, waiting for her child and then that child having to die so they might live. I can imagine it being painful no matter what the situation is). And personally, if it was me, I would tell the doctors, if at all possible, save us both, but they cannot then save the child.

People live with the decision of having had an abortion every day. Sometimes, women feel very guilty of having made the decision. Most, however, are not.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

pming now

 

[The Gregorian]

The reason why a woman is free to abort, and why the man (usually) doesn't have a say in the process, is because it's her body. She, and she alone, has the right to decide what takes place inside her body. She is the only one who owns the blood upon which the fetus is dependent. She, and she alone, has the right to decide who benefits from the blood in her bloodstream. She is free to deprive the fetus of her blood, if she wants to.

Her body isn't the one under question... it's the body inside her. By having sex, she agreed to put it there. The child is partially hers, but the child belongs to the father JUST AS MUCH. As a father, if someone plans to hurt my child, I can defend him or her, can I not? So if a girl gets pregnant, she's free to kill it, and I have no say in the matter and am legally obligated to sit back and let someone kill my child?!

You talk about rape victims being powerless... that's nothing compared to KNOWING someone's about to kill your baby, and being forced to sit back and watch. Don't believe me? Any decent parent out there: If you knew your young child was about to be raped... would you not be willing to do ANYTHING to stop that from happening, even if you have to take his or her place? Or would you let your child be raped as long as it meant you didn't have to?

the fetus still doesn't have the right to forcibly take nutrients from the mother's bloodstream, if she doesn't want it to.

It does when she was the one that put it there by having sex with someone.

You can't just put someone somewhere, then kill them because you changed their mind. You can't invite someone into your home, then kill them for trespassing.