It should be Murder?

[nomadictheist]

It is one of the justifications, not the only one. Have you no sympathy for women in that plight?

Why would you use that argument for totally unrelated issues?

As you might already know, sometimes an issue doesn't have to be "related" for the point to be real. The fact that people will do something illegally if it's illegal is never enough reason to make it legal. If they choose to do something illegally, they accept and are fully responsible for any negative consequences that they suffer as a result.

No, it isn't. It is only a minority of people like yourself, with a very narrow agenda, that attempt to label it as "murder".

I don't consider the protection of human life to be a "very narrow agenda." It's good to know that you do, though.

Do you really wonder that? I don't think you do. I think you are being silly.

Actually I do wonder why somebody would consider a bird fetus more important and worthy of protection than a human fetus.

 

[SteveB28]

I believe what most pro-life people propose is that we should not offer places for women to go kill their unborn babies legally.

That would be simple to enforce. Just shut down anybody who's offering services to kill unborn babies.

And, as has been repeated ad nauseum, all you would succeed in doing is to force women into the dangerous practices of the past. Pregnancies would still be terminated, with the additional impact of many women losing their lives as well.

 

[SteveB28]

Because it's called "reason." The fact that people will do things illegally is never a reason to make them legal.

Except when you reach a point wherein the majority of people no longer consider a behaviour to be illegal.

As we have now.

 

[nomadictheist]

And, as has been repeated ad nauseum, all you would succeed in doing is to force women into the dangerous practices of the past. Pregnancies would still be terminated, with the additional impact of many women losing their lives as well.

That's not any more true than saying that making cocaine illegal forces thousands of young adults and adults to risk HIV infection by going to illegal sources with dirty needles.

If a woman wants to murder her baby, then there's no reason that there shouldn't be risk associated with it - that risk might make more women reconsider the "abortion option..."

 

[SteveB28]

No - that's not an answer to the question. That's just saying "because government says it's ok to murder your child as long as you do it through medical procedures."

No it isn't. Despite your view, abortion is not considered to be murder.

 

[nomadictheist]

Except when you reach a point wherein the majority of people no longer consider a behaviour to be illegal.

As we have now.

So when do you stop the ability to take human life? Why can't I kill a baby who's already been born? He/she is just as dependent on his/her mother as before he/she came out of the womb. What about adult children who just don't leave the house?

 

[nomadictheist]

No it isn't. Despite your view, abortion is not considered to be murder.

In some middle eastern countries it's not considered murder to execute people for converting to another religion. Just because something is "considered" or "not considered" to be something does not nullify the truth.

 

[nomadictheist]

No it isn't. Despite your view, abortion is not considered to be murder.

Actually, if you look at state law abortion is considered murder... just not when it's done as a medical procedure

 

[SteveB28]

That's not any more true than saying that making cocaine illegal forces thousands of young adults and adults to risk HIV infection by going to illegal sources with dirty needles.

Cocaine is delivered via a needle? I think you mean the opiate group of drugs? And your point is very significant, as many western governments have considered this very issue in recent decades, with the gradual decriminalisation of much drug use, as it is considered that harm is minimised through doing so.

But, we drift off topic.

If a woman wants to murder her baby, then there's no reason that there shouldn't be risk associated with it - that risk might make more women reconsider the "abortion option..."

Oh, what a wonderfully charitable and empathetic person!

Let's ignore your misogyny for a moment - the numbers simply don't support your cruel 'solution'. In the periods when abortion was illegal, more abortions were performed each year! Since the legalisation, abortion rates have steadily declined in the USA.

 

[SteveB28]

In some middle eastern countries it's not considered murder to execute people for converting to another religion. Just because something is "considered" or "not considered" to be something does not nullify the truth.

We are speaking about abortion, in a western country.

Your desperation in having to dredge up these irrelevant analogies speaks volumes about the sincerity of your argument.

 

[SteveB28]

Actually, if you look at state law abortion is considered murder... just not when it's done as a medical procedure

And, once again, you provide your own answer! Legal medical terminations are NOT regarded as murder!

Thank you for doing my work.

 

[redleghunter]

I see many here who would wish to deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy, by declaring that it would be an act of murder.

And yet I also see those same people running away from this question:

How would such a law be enforced?

Sure good question Steve:


Same way every law is enforced. Some are well enforced where there are plenty of eyewitnesses and some are not so well enforced like visa expirations.

In the case of abortion the easiest way to enforce is to close down the abortion clinics. I believe Texas has all but closed 11 Statewide enforcing stricter women's health provisions. You basically have to go to the hospital to get an abortion.

That's where enforcement of the law begins. With those who perform the abortions.

Will women and doctors disobey the law? Sure, but does that mean we don't have laws for other crimes that cannot be enforced 100%.

Laws serve multiple purposes and one is a reflection of the values of society.

 

[redleghunter]

For example, if it is reported to the authorities that a woman who was known to be pregnant is no longer so, how should they proceed?

I would hope to first congratulate them on their new arrival. As not knowing any details I can assume all I want but the woman could have delivered and put the child up for adoption. That is why you go after the providers.

 

[BiblicalAstronomy]

It seems that many on this "Christian Forum" who mark their faith as "Atheist" are quick to comment on Abortion classified as "Murder." What is the "faith" of an Atheist? Since they reject Faith in the Almighty, it seems they have replaced it with faith in human reason, evolution or their own whim? I agree that it takes much more "believing" to be an Atheist than it does a Christian, but followers of Christ have much more concrete evidence to rest their believing on, since Scripture is the basis for all genuine truth. However, there is plenty of Biblical [Astronomy] evidence supporting the timing of Christ's birth for example; [Blog.try-god.org] with a scientific basis to rest on also. Why are Atheists so interested in a Christian Forum? If it is to criticize, perhaps they should first explain why numerous former Atheists who began studying Christianity, [like CS Lewis for 1] ended up as Christians themselves, due to where the evidence of their study led them-there are many more.

As for the Abortion issue, people are very quick to agree with the classification of Abortion as Murder, in the above discussion as a Capital offense, perhaps they would be surprised to learn that Old Testament Law penalty for one who injured a pregnant lady causing a miscarriage, was only a fine. If the OT considered this death of a fetus, "murder" than surely the sentence would have been based on "an eye for an eye," but it is not. [Ex. 21:22-24] Also recall that Adam did not become a living soul until he took his first breath [Gen. 2:7]. People need to consider all that Scripture has to say on a subject before they subordinate the life of a fully mature adult to that of a fetus, which is only the potential for life-once it takes its first breath!

 

[redleghunter]

Shouldn't they be just as concerned about drinking alcohol during pregnancy, or partaking in rigorous or risky physical activity?

Who isn't concerned about those things. Most women can read labels and know from Kindergarten smoking and drinking is very bad during pregnancy. I have offered on several occasions to help pregnant women lugging bags around an airport terminal help with the bags. Some accept and some don't.

 

[nomadictheist]

Cocaine is delivered via a needle? I think you mean the opiate group of drugs? And your point is very significant, as many western governments have considered this very issue in recent decades, with the gradual decriminalisation of much drug use, as it is considered that harm is minimised through doing so.

Meant to say Heroin. My mistake.

But, we drift off topic.



Oh, what a wonderfully charitable and empathetic person!

So now it's uncharitable to suggest that people should face consequences for actions? Let's make murder legal so people who don't like other people for some reason don't have to live with the consequences of disposing of them too.
I feel sympathy for people in these situations, but that doesn't mean that I condone the taking of a human life for any reason.

Let's ignore your misogyny for a moment - the numbers simply don't support your cruel 'solution'. In the periods when abortion was illegal, more abortions were performed each year! Since the legalisation, abortion rates have steadily declined in the USA.

This has nothing to do with misogyny. It has everything to do with people accepting the consequences for their actions. You label it misogyny because only women can have children, but it has nothing to do with that specific issue. It has to do with the protection of human life. Currently the only time you can take a human life with no consequences is before birth.

I would like to see your source on that. According to the Washington Post, abortion rates rose sharply in the years following the legalization of abortion in the U.S. in 1973, and began to decline again in the early 80s, rising again in the early 90s, and following a general decline since that time.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, in fact the number of "back-alley" procedures will rise enormously if such a cruel and ridiculous law were to be introduced. I can well remember in my country prior to the 1970's the frequent horrific tales of unfortunate women faced with no other alternative than to risk their life and health over an abortion performed by a rank amateur. These fools would see us return to those times, presumably.

Moreover, where do they see the plight of the unlucky woman who suffers a miscarriage unfolding? Would she have to suffer doubly by facing the ignominy of a police investigation, to ensure that she hadn't 'murdered' her foetus?

You will note, of course, that there is a disproportionate number of men urging such a change.

You have a view the pre-born child is not a human being. I do and science agrees with me. So there is a way to avoid a back alley abortion...don't get one. If your health is at such a point the pregnancy is endangering your life, then go to the hospital to have them conduct triage. It's that simple.

When a woman decides to back-alley abort then there are two human lives at stake.

 

[redleghunter]

Usual suspect strangely quiet in this thread. How curious.

I was wondering where everyone was hiding.

 

[redleghunter]

Oh, well that was simple. We've solved the abortion issue. What should we solve next?

Yes it is that simple. Have the baby.

 

[SteveB28]

Sure good question Steve:


Same way every law is enforced. Some are well enforced where there are plenty of eyewitnesses and some are not so well enforced like visa expirations.

In the case of abortion the easiest way to enforce is to close down the abortion clinics. I believe Texas has all but closed 11 Statewide enforcing stricter women's health provisions. You basically have to go to the hospital to get an abortion.

That's where enforcement of the law begins. With those who perform the abortions.

Will women and doctors disobey the law? Sure, but does that mean we don't have laws for other crimes that cannot be enforced 100%.

Laws serve multiple purposes and one is a reflection of the values of society.

And, to repeat for the umpteenth time, history gives us an excellent picture of the outcome of illegalising abortions - women still have them performed, but under highly dangerous circumstances.

Be very clear about this. Your draconian suggestion will not reduce the number of abortions! Don't believe me? Go and check the number of abortions performed during the 1950's when the practice was illegal. Compare that with the number performed now.

All you succeed in doing is to place the health/lives of many, many women at risk - you won't 'save' a single fetus.