It should be Murder?

[Just Ben]

Calling a child an "it" only shows what side people are on. A fetus is a child in Gods eyes.

 

[blackribbon]

Yes, and are we going to perform random tests to discover if a child has been sexually molested or sexually abused? Why do you ask impractical questions?

It isn't an impractical question. How else are we going to determine if a woman was pregnant to prosecute them for terminating a pregnancy? The whole concept is impractical....

 

[blackribbon]

Yes, it is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion
Abortion
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2.
any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
3.
Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage (def 1).

correct...and that is what it says in the medical records of someone who has miscarried..."spontaneous abortion"...miscarried is not a medical term.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Well, I think the serial killer is a person, and a first trimester fetus isn't

Is a "fetus" a human being? If it isn't, then what is it? A serial killer is guilty. How a bout a "fetus"? Should the law make a difference between someone who is guilty and another who is innocent?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Would you have any objection to sending most children to heaven? How about sending to heaven all those we don't like?

That is up to God. He is the one to decide not us.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Is a "fetus" a human being?

A fertilized ovum called a zygote is a human because all the information is there. Two people have joined together to create an offspring.

 

[Belk]

Is a "fetus" a human being? If it isn't, then what is it? A serial killer is guilty. How a bout a "fetus"? Should the law make a difference between someone who is guilty and another who is innocent?

Since we are dealing with law the relevant question is "Is the fetus a person"? My answer would be no. It does not have the requisite cognitive function to be a person.

 

[SteveB28]

Really?

I just laid out exactly what you said, and you still deny it?

1. You said this is a discussion about what the law should be.

2. I said that I was discussing what the law morally should be.

3. You said that's a topic for a different discussion.

4. So, to be clear, you said that anyone who wants to discuss the morality of changing the law shouldn't be discussing it on a forum discussing what the law should be. Regardless of whether you used the exact words, this is a clear statement that the law should not be based on moral standards.

You are the one that is lying, just like you're lying about the abortion rates going down after abortion was legalized. As the study cited in the Washington Post showed, abortion rates actually climbed rapidly in the years immediately following the Roe v. Wade case, with experts adding that there were still many illegal abortions taking place that weren't even accounted for in those numbers.

Do you know what the problem is when you start lying? You get tripped up in your own lies.

Your words.....

I'm not talking about what the human law is. I'm talking about what it should morally be.

Now...this particular is discussion IS about the law, whether you are "talking about" it or not! I repeat, if you want to discuss some other aspect, then start your own discussion!

Continue to talk to yourself........

 

[SteveB28]

The so called: "fools" are the ones that are having the baby. This is a test and God says to choose LIFE. Yet it is still a choice. WE hope that people would make the right choice and not kill their own child. Back during the time of slavery a father could sell their child into slavery if they wanted to. We would hope that they would not, but they had that choice they had that option. Today a mother can sell a daughter into prostitution. She can sell her daughters virginity. We would hope that a mother would not do that to her daughter but she has that choice. God gives us choices and He hopes that we make the right choice. I would hope that a parent would not kill their own child. Or that a child would not kill their parents. But they can if they want. God gives them that choice. He wants for them to make the right choice but still it is their choice to make.

I don't recognise any claims made concerning a god's supposed wishes.

This discussion is centred around HUMANS wanting to introduce a law.

 

[SteveB28]

We prosecute lesser crimes like rape, sexual abuse of children and car thefts. I my car is stolen, I can buy another. A life stolen can never be replaced. The criminal act is is final. Can't we use common sense?

Definitely. And the "common sense" approach would lead us to the understanding that many desperate, poor, often badly educated, often alone women are going to seek the termination of pregnancies, whether it is made illegal or not!

Making criminals out of these unfortunate people will not 'save' a single foetus and will only serve to significantly increase your already obscenely bloated prison populations.

 

[SteveB28]

Where do you get these inflated figures from.

"In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.[1] Corrections (which includes prisons, jails, probation, and parole) cost around $74 billion in 2007 according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics"

I suggest you watch the following confessions of an ex-abortion doctor:

I did. Why should I pay any mind to someone who, like yourself, merely makes unsubstantiated, unevidenced claims?

 

[SteveB28]

At what point in the development of the unborn child would you consider it to be a moral duty to protect the life of a human being?

My view is that once sapience, sentience and survivability independent of the woman can be demonstrated, then some other option should be explored for those who do not wish to raise a child. Typically, this would be a foetus with at least 24 weeks of development.

But there is the salient point. That is MY opinion and no one else should feel obligated to abide with it!

 

[SteveB28]

If your son or daughter were dying of cancer, would you discourage him/her from praying to God?

I would neither encourage nor discourage him. It would be his choice.

However, if I thought there was something more useful he could do with his hands, that might actually aid his survival, I would certainly suggest it!

And this is off topic.

 

[SteveB28]

Since the pregnant woman did not create the life that is within her, she has no "right" to end it (that is a false presupposition. Only God has the right to end life, since He is the Creator.

No he isn't. There, that was easy.

Abortion is murder.

No, it is not. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Abortion is not unlawful, nor is a foetus a human being.

It should be illegal.

The community and the courts disagree with you.

The woman makes a moral choice when she gets an abortion. The person (they are not a Doctor, for a Doctor preserves life, not destroys it) who performs the abortion should likewise be charged with murder. Any staff that helped that woman to murder her child should be charged as an accessory to murder. Any boyfriend or husband that encouraged or coerced the woman to have the abortion is likewise an accessory. The friend who drove her to the abortuary likewise is an accomplice to murder.

They should be charged the same as anyone else who murders another person. For some it would be life in prison, for others, the death penalty.

Ah yes. The conservative fundamentalist.......

"Who can I hate today!?"

 

[SteveB28]

Investigate the cause of the loss of pregnancy and if it is shown to have been an abortion, then it should be charged as murder.

Do you know the number of women, already distraught at having suffered a miscarriage, you would be subjecting to the humiliation and pain of having to prove that they didn't 'kill' their foetus!?

Let me guess.........you're male, correct?

 

[SteveB28]

How do you identify all those guilty of sexually abusing children? Should we legalize the sexual abuse of children because we cannot identity all crimes against children?

Answer the question. How are you going to differentiate between those women who 'innocently' suffered a miscarriage and those who caused a termination?

 

[SteveB28]

A miscarriage is not an abortion. An abortion is a willful choice to murder a child. Miscarriage is not.

And how will the authorities determine which is which?

 

[SteveB28]

For those who believe in God there are only two kinds of children: born and unborn. If you reject this premise, then perhaps you should limit yourself to visiting atheistic web sites.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You will note that, in structuring this discussion, NO mention was made of any particular religious stance.

Start your own discussion if you wish to pontificate.

 

[SteveB28]

Correct! The same applies to any other crime: theft, sexual abuse of children, rape, drug dealing, and so on. Are you suggesting that we legalize all immoral activity? Would the world be a better place if we were to make all immoral acts legal?:

In all of those other examples, we criminalise them because someone else is harmed by them. A foetus is not deemed to be a person. The woman's welfare takes primacy.

 

[SteveB28]

Is a child the result of magic: one minute before delivery it is not a child, but a minute later it is one?

Legally that is correct.

And surely I need not point out that is not I who believes in magic in this discussion!