Is abortion murder?

[LightHorseman]

I maintaain that (in most Western jurisdictions at any rate) abortion is NOT murder, because "murder" is a legal term with a specified meaning, that is, it refers to an ILLEGAL killing. Thus, if you kill something legally, it simply can never be murder.

Now, that is not to say that you can't argue that abortion is immoral, unethical, wrong, evil, or even that it SHOULD be illegal and considered murder, all such opinions are valid if the person saying them has made a reasoned decission. However, when I see the boring bumpersticker argument "abortion is murder", I really just kind of see red, it says to me that the person saying it is a sloppy thinker and is more interested in argument from emotion rather than argument from reason, or that the person is to lasy or simple to find a more appropriate term to express their opinion on the matter.

So please, if you want to use negative terms about abortion, like "wrong", "evil", "unforgiveable" or whatever, be my guest. But calling abortion "murder" anywhere it is legal is simply erroneus. It would be like saying receiving a gift is stealing or that truthfully making a statement is purjory... its using a legally defined term incorrectly to describe an act similar to the one the term refers to.

 

[WatersMoon110]

As I pointed out in the last thread, there is a non-legal (slang) definition of "murder" which basically means "something considered very bad" as in the traffic is murder out there. To keep myself from getting angry when people say "abortion is murder" I always assume that they are using that non-legal definition for the term.

 

[stan1980]

We've got the clean sweep on the front page now! "Abortion is murder", "Abortion isn't murder" and now we've got "Is abortion murder?". What next?

Anyways, I don't think abortion is wrong. I used to sit a bit on the fence about this, but the turning point was realising that a foetus can't miss its own life. The mother might miss what she could have had, but that's for her to live with, and not my business. The father (if he knows about the pregnancy) might miss what he could have had, but quite frankly, it's not him who has to give birth. I think it's fair to say it is more the mothers baby than the fathers baby, as the thing is inside the female. Lets face it, all the father has to do is donate some sperm.

 

[stan1980]

Just a quick question to the people who say abortion isn't wrong. A while back I started a thread, asking is it wrong to kill a man painlessly in his sleep, if there is no one to miss him (he has no family, friends etc.).. Everyone (barring me) said that would be wrong. I think personally, you're being inconsistent, if you say that is wrong and killing a foetus isn't wrong. How do you equate that?

 

[WatersMoon110]

Just a quick question to the people who say abortion isn't wrong. A while back I started a thread, asking is it wrong to kill a man painlessly in his sleep, if there is no one to miss him (he has no family, friends etc.).. Everyone (barring me) said that would be wrong. I think personally, you're being inconsistent, if you say that is wrong and killing a foetus isn't wrong. How do you equate that?

A born male human is not living inside or off of anyone's body. An unborn humans is, and there is no way to immediately remove it from the pregnant woman's body without killing it. To me, abortion is an act based on the pregnant woman's right to control her own body, and deny use of it to the unborn human. There is no reason to kill a sleeping man, because he isn't using anyone's body against their will.

 

[Lisa0315]

Thank you for starting this new poll. I wondered why the other one was so weird.

Lisa

 

[lawtonfogle]

A born male human is not living inside or off of anyone's body. An unborn humans is, and there is no way to immediately remove it from the pregnant woman's body without killing it. To me, abortion is an act based on the pregnant woman's right to control her own body, and deny use of it to the unborn human. There is no reason to kill a sleeping man, because he isn't using anyone's body against their will.

But ones right to do as they wish with their own body is often limited. My right to move my hand to a certain position and then 'pull' my finger inwards is limited if it happens to be that my hand is holding a gun and that position leaves it pointing at someone I can't legally kill (aka, no self defense of such). My right to MY body has been trampled upon, because of their right to their body. The first question which needs to be asked is if an unborn *insert favorite word here* has any right to their body. If no, then no problem. If yes, then the next question would be if it supersedes another's right to their body or not. This next question can only be logically worked out when we figure out the exact order of importance of these rights to the body we have.

Yet so few are willing to go at it from logos/ethos angle without at least some pathos.

 

[karisma]

But ones right to do as they wish with their own body is often limited. My right to move my hand to a certain position and then 'pull' my finger inwards is limited if it happens to be that my hand is holding a gun and that position leaves it pointing at someone I can't legally kill (aka, no self defense of such). My right to MY body has been trampled upon, because of their right to their body. The first question which needs to be asked is if an unborn *insert favorite word here* has any right to their body. If no, then no problem. If yes, then the next question would be if it supersedes another's right to their body or not. This next question can only be logically worked out when we figure out the exact order of importance of these rights to the body we have.

A fetus may or may not have the same rights as born people, but they certainly cannot have more rights than any born person. And as no born person has any right to another person's blood or organs, a fetus cannot either, without the woman's consent.

 

[Lisa0315]

A fetus may or may not have the same rights as born people, but they certainly cannot have more rights than any born person. And as no born person has any right to another person's blood or organs, a fetus cannot either, without the woman's consent.

Answer yes or no. Did the woman consent to sex? If so, then, she consented to all the inherant risks including pregnancy. Stop making this the fetus' responsibility when it is the parent's responsibility to care for that child.

Think on this: One breath is the only legal distinguishment between citizen and parasite. One breath.

Lisa

 

[stan1980]

Answer yes or no. Did the woman consent to sex? If so, then, she consented to all the inherant risks including pregnancy. Stop making this the fetus' responsibility when it is the parent's responsibility to care for that child.

Think on this: One breath is the only legal distinguishment between citizen and parasite. One breath.

Lisa

Why does the foetus matter?

Are you a vegetarian? If not then you've indirectly been responsible for the deaths of many animals with far more sentiment than a bunch of cells (the foetus).

Is killing one of these:

worse than killing one of these:

 

[Lisa0315]

Why does the foetus matter?

Are you a vegetarian? If not then you've indirectly been responsible for the deaths of many animals with far more sentiment than a bunch of cells (the foetus).

Is killing one of these:

worse than killing one of these:

Yeah, it is. A frog, or ape, or whatever that is not human does not have the potential that a human fetus does.

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

Here is potential:

6 weeks



8 weeks

 

[Lisa0315]

 

[stan1980]

Yeah, it is. A frog, or ape, or whatever that is not human does not have the potential that a human fetus does.

Lisa

Why does potential matter? It is what it is (a foetus), and as it is, it isn't much. It's not like there is a shortage of humans.

 

[Lisa0315]

 

[Lisa0315]

Why does potential matter? It is what it is (a foetus), and as it is, it isn't much. It's not like there is a shortage of humans.

Don't play God.

 

[platzapS]

Don't play God.

Do you think eating meat is wrong? If not, who are you to play God by deciding it's OK to slaughter some creatures for personal consumption?

What I'm saying is, what makes humans so special just for being humans?

 

[Lisa0315]

Do you think eating meat is wrong? If not, who are you to play God by deciding it's OK to slaughter some creatures for personal consumption?

What I'm saying is, what makes humans so special just for being humans?

To answer your question, in the words of Christ, "It was not so from the beginning." Animals were not created for consumption and babies were not created to be murdered.

As for the value of animals opposed to humans, whom did Jesus die for?

Lisa

 

[Paulos23]

Don't play God.

Why not, it seams to be a human thing to do. Are you not playing god when a life is created?

 

[Lisa0315]

Why not, it seams to be a human thing to do. Are you not playing god when a life is created?

Human and Supreme at once. Life does not exist without God from conception to death. We do not exist without God.

Lisa